EERI Oral History Series, Vol. 3, Rinne Pregnoff

CONNECTIONS The EERI Oral History Series

Michael V. Pregnoff

John E. Rinne

Stanley Scott, Interviewer

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Editor: Gail H. Shea, Albany, CA Cover and book design: Laura Moger Graphics, Moorpark, CA Copyright 0 1996 by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute and the Regents of the University of California All rights reserved. All literary rights in the manuscript, including the right to publish, are reserved to the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute and the Bancroft Library of the University of California at Berkeley. No part may be reproduced, quoted, or transmitted in any form without the written permission of the Executive Director of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute or the Director of the Bancroft Library of the University of California at Berkeley. Requests for permission to quote for publication should include identification of the specific passages to be quoted, anticipated use of the passages, and identification of the user. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the oral history subject and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute or the University of California.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Pregnoff, Michael V., 1900- Michael V. Pregnoff, John E. Rinne/Stanley Scott, interviewer. p. cm. - (Connections: the EERI oral history series) Includes indexes. ISBN 0-943198-53-4 (pbk.) 1. Pregnoff, Michael V., 1900-Interviews. 2. Rinne, John E., 1909- 1992-Interviews. 3. Civil engineers-California-Interviews. 4. Earthquake engineering-California-History. I. Scott, Stanley.1921- . 11. Rinne, John E., 1909-1992. 111. Title. IV.Series. TA139.P74 1996 624.1’762’0922-dc20 96-3088 Published by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute 499 14th Street, Suite 320 Oakland, CA 94612-1934 Tel: (510) 451-0905 Fax: (510) 451-5411 EERI Publication No.: OHS-3

Printed in the United States of America 12345678 02 01 00 99 98 97 96 Acknowledgments

The help, encouragement, and editorial feedback of EERI Executive Director Susan K. Tubbesing and the EERI Board of Directors were instrumental in both establishing Connections: The EERI Oral Histovy Series and in bringing this volume to publication. EERI also gratefully acknowledges partial funding of this project by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

iii

The EERI Oral

HistorvJ Series This is the third volume in Connections: The EERl Oral Histo? Series. The Earthquake Engineering Research Institute initiated this series to preserve some of the rich history of those who have pioneered in the field of earthquake engineering and seismic design. The field of earthquake engineering has undergone significant, even revolutionary, changes since individuals first began thinking about how to design structures that would survive earthquakes. The engineers who led in malung these changes and shaped seismic design theory and practice have fascinating stories. Connections: The EERl Oral History Series is a vehicle for transmitting their impressions and experiences, their reflections on the events and individuals that influenced their thinking, their ideas and theories, and their recollections of the ways in which they went about solving problems that advanced the practice of earthquake engineering. These reminiscences are themselves a vital contribution to our understanding of the development of seismic design and earthquake hazard reduction. The Earthquake Engineering Research Institute is proud to have that story be told in Connections. The oral history interviews on which Connections is based were initiated and are being carried out by Stanley Scott, formerly a research political scientist at the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California at Berkeley, who has himself for many years been active in and written on seismic safety policy and earthquake engineering. A member of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute since 1973, Scott was a commissioner on the California State Seismic Safety Commission for 18 years, from 1975 to 1993. In 1990, Scott received the Alfred E. Alquist Award from the Earthquake Safety Foundation. Recognizing the historical importance of the work that earthquake engineers and others have been doing, Scott began recording interviews in 1984. The wealth of information obtained from these interviews led him to consider initiating an oral history project on earthquake engineering and seismic safety policy. Oral history interviews involve an interviewee and interviewer in recorded conversational discussions of agreed-upon topics. After transcrip- tion, revision, and editing, the interviews and the tapes are placed in the Bancroft Library at the University of California at Berkeley for research purposes and scholarly use. Occasion- ally, interested professional organizations sponsor publication and wider distribution of interviews, as the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute is doing with Connections.

V In due course, the Regional Oral History Office of the Bancroft Library approved such an oral history project on a continuing, but unfunded, basis. First undertaken while Scott was employed by the Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California at Berkeley, the effort has been continued on his own following his retirement in 1989. Modest funding for some expenses has been provided by the National Science Foundation. Scott’s initial effort has grown into an extensive program of interviews with earthquake engineers who have been particularly active in seismic safety policy and practice. Key members of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute became interested in the project when asked to read and advise on the oral history transcripts. The Earthquake Engineering Research Institute was established in 1949 as a membership organization to encourage research, investigate the effects of destructive earthquakes and the causes of building failures, and bring research scientists and practicing engineers together to solve challenging engineering problems through exchange of information, research results, and theories. In many ways, the development of seismic design is part of the history of EERI.

EERI Oral History Series Henry J. Degenkolb 1994 John A. Blume 1994 Michael V. Pregnoff and John E. Rinne 1996 Interviews completed or nearing completion include: George W. Housner William W. Moore William T. Wheeler Robert E. Wallace

Interviews with several others are in progress.

vi Table of Contents

... Acknowledgments 111 The EERI Oral History Series V Michael V. Pregnoff 1 Foreword by Stanley Scott 3 A Personal Introduction by Frank E. McClure 7 Chapter 1 The Early Days 9 Chapter 2 Observations Based on Practice 19 Chapter 3 Seismic Design Considerations 29 Chapter 4 Design Simplicity and Building Behavior 37 Chapter 5 Seismic Code Development 47 Chapter 6 Observations on Prevailing Practice 55 Photographs 61 Appendix Excerpts: Building Code for California, 1939 63 John E. Rinne 73 Foreword by Stanley Scott 75 A Personal Introduction by F. Robert Preece 77 Chapter 1 Background and Education 81 Chapter 2 Early Employment During the Depression 85 Chapter 3 Career 91 Chapter 4 Activities in Engineering Organizations 97 Chapter 5 Developing a New Design Code 101 Chapter 6 Separate 66 Report 109 Chapter 7 Observations Based on Practice 127 Chapter 8 Concluding Observations on Earthquake Engineering 131 Photographs 135 Pregnoff Index 141 Rinne Index 153

vi i

CONNECTIONS The EERI Oral History Series

Michael V. Pregnoff

Foreword

In 1986 I conducted two oral history interviews with Michael Pregnoff, the first of about two hours' duration and the second a marathon day-long session. Both were held in Al Paquette's San Francisco office on Mission Street, not far from the Trans- bay Terminal. After an initial two-hour session, neither of us was s atisfied with the transcript, whereupon he proposed scheduling a full-day session. At first I was reluctant, since few oral history interviews run more than about two hours at the most. I agreed, however, when I saw that this was the way he preferred to do it. We met in Paquette's office for a second interview, which started at 1O:OO in the morning and continued until about 4:30 in the afternoon. It was not feasible to work from an organized outline, so we recorded verbatim a lund of stream-of-consciousness flow, interspersed here and there by my queries. This open-ended, nonstop style of interviewing seemed to work quite well. At midday we took a 45-minute break for sandwiches. At the end of the day, he did not seem to be at all tired, although I was definitely feeling some wear and tear. At age 86, and doing most of the tallung, he maintained his energy level all day, and his memory was excellent. Although English is his second language (Russian is his native tongue), he expressed himself clearly on a wide range of topics with great fluency. Care has been taken to use Mike Pregnoff s original language and wording, virtually unchanged.

He focused mostly on what he considered to be "technical" engineering material and observations. When touching on more personal, human aspects of his experiences, he repeatedly apologized by saying, "The researchers don't want that," or "They won't need that.. ." Regretfully, there is relatively little here about his Russian origins. Although he talked a little about his family and early background, and about his experience in the revolution, he later requested that most of what was recorded be deleted from the transcript. In lieu of the personal material left out of the text, I include a few biographical highlights here. Michael V Pregnoff was born in 1900 near Vladivostok, Russia, and he received his engineering education at the Polytechnic Institute of Vladivostok. Caught up in the Russian Revolution and the brutal Civil War that followed, he soon decided to try his

3 future elsewhere, making his way to San Francisco via Japan on a Japanese vessel routed through Hawaii, and arriving in August, 1922. He entered the US. with his Russian degree in engineering, but with very little English. After arriving, the 23-year-old Mike Pregnoff worked for a relatively short time as a laborer in a brick factory, and also as a dishwasher, until his English had improved enough to give him the confidence to apply for a job at an engineering office. His first professional employment was with C.H. Snyder. He stayed with that firm until it became Hall & Pregnoff, established by the surviving part- ners of C.H. Snyder. The firm name later became Hall, Pregnoff and Matheu, then Pregnoff and Matlieu, then PMB (Pregnoff, Matheu, and Beebe). Among the innumerable projects Pregnoff worked on were the San Francisco Opera House; the Planetarium in San Francisco; Army and Navy buildings; the University of California's Cyclotron, Synchrotron, and Dwinelle Hall; the Hoover Library Tower and many other buildings at Stanford University . The listing of structures on which he or his firm worked fills many pages and includes sites throughout California, although concentrated in the Bay Area. Always a very hard worker, he did manage to change his style after he reached his SOs, relying more on trusted colleagues. He spent time on professional engineering organizational activities and also made frequent visits to his cabin at Lake Tahoe, where he indulged his personal interests in nature study, hiking, and carpentry. At the time of the interviews in 1986, however, he still regularly participated in meetings of the Seismology Committee of the Structural Engineers Association of Northern California, and attended virtually every session as it worked on revisions for the Blue Book, the seismic design "bible" of the Structural Engineers Association of California. Mike Pregnoff s recollections span the long years back to the early 1920s, with memories of some important early-day figures in earthquake engineering-the first generation, in fact. Three who notably influenced him in the early stages of his career were R.S. Chew, Fred Hall, and C.H. Snyder. Their examples and counsel helped instill a lifelong concern for quality engineering. Chew, in particular, taught him valuable lessons in earthquake-resistant design in the mid-1920s, at a time when few other California engineers were specifically designing for lateral forces other than wind. Many other prominent earthquake engineers from earlier times also figure in Pregnoff's recollections, including H.J. Brunnier, Gus Saph, Austin Earl, L.H. Nishkian, and E.L. Cope. Later, the

4 older Pregnoff mentored the next generation. Below is an excerpt from unfinished oral history interviews with the late James Stratta, who early in his career worked for Pregnoff and Hall:

. . .one day with Prepof is worth one semester at the University. Mike Pregnoff is a very unselfsh individual. He is extremely intelligent, extremely knowledgeable, extremely pmctical, and he liked to teach the people working fir him to do things the way he liked to see them done. I guess all of us want to see things done our own way. He would quite often ask me to work over- time in the evenings.. . He would pay me time-and-a-half; which not all ou$ts did at that time. Then he'd take me out to dinner: Then afterward we'd come back, and instead of working om a project he would sit there and go over some of the basic fundamentals of engineering. It was actually an instiwction period of how to do seismic design.. . In addition to their historical content, Mike Pregnoff s reflections have a wealth of astute observation on seismic design philosophy and engineering practice-both practice as it ought to be conducted and object lessons drawn from observations of unsatisfactory structural performance. The structural engineer's relations with the architect is another important recurring theme. He also emphasized the importance of distinguishing between appropriate and inappropriate uses of computers in structural design, and points out practical ways to avoid trouble by proper use of knowledge based on experience and application of pragmatic engineering judgment and intuition. All in all, his explanations of the criteria and characteristics of good design and good engineering practice are convincing, clear, and expressed in language even a reader laclung engineering background can grasp. His oral history spells out his philosophy of good engineering practice. It should be a valuable resource for engineering and architectural students who wish to hear what one gifted old hand and dedicated engineer has distilled from a lifetime of experience as the essentials of practice. Stanley Scott Research Associate and Research Political Scientist, Retired Institute of Governmental Studies University of California, Berkeley January 1996

A Personal Introduction

This personal introduction should have been written by a structural engineer who worked with Michael Pregnoff-someone like Jim Stratta, Pete Kellam, or Bob Matheu. Unfortunately, they are no longer with us. My first contact with Michael Pregnoff goes back about SO years to around 1946, when I was returning from World War 11. Like many other young structural engineers, I learned that finding work with established structural engineering offices depended on their work loads, which fluctuated. In my search, I called on the office of Hall and Pregnoff on Kearney Street in San Francisco. Their office consisted of an entry way, two or three small offices, and several drafting rooms. What impressed me as a job seeker was the large number of empty drafting tables. The employment application form was a small 3-by-5 file card, on which I was asked to write my name, address, and phone number. When I talked to Mike Pregnoff, he was very courteous and explained that the firm did not have any work at that time. Like Gus Saph, H.J. Brunnier, and other prominent consulting engineers of the time, he took a personal interest in young engineers and encouraged them to stay in the structural engineering field, despite the difficulty in finding the right position on the first attempt. Except for seeing Mike Pregnoff at meetings of the Structural Engineers Association of Northern California, my next contact with him was when I went to work in 1954 for the Oakland Unified School District as a structural engineer in their Department of Architecture and Engineering. The school district was planning a bond issue to reconstruct or replace their pre-Field Act schools. Their planning was based on a report by the structural engineering firm Hall, Pregnoff, and Matheu, and the architectural firm Reynolds and Chamberlain, Report on Stmctural Stability of Certain Old School Buildings in the Oakland UniJed School Distrtict (August 20, 1953). Mike Pregnoffwas the principal author and had been personally involved with the background investigations for the report, as well as the structural calculations and cost estimates presented in it. This report was extremely innovative and forward looking, and much of its methodology is still in use today.

7 The report employed a system of building ratings-Good, Fair, Poor, and Very Poor-to describe expected building performance during future earthquakes with varying Modified Mercalli damage intensities. These ratings represented Pregnoff‘s judgment of the likely extent of damage, ranging from “negligible,” “some,” “considerable,” “great,” or “very great” life hazard for each school in earthquakes with modified Mercalli Intensities of VII, VIII, IX, and X. This methodology was later adopted in the 1975 University of California Seismic Safety Policy, a policy still in effect today. For 20 years these ratings, when confirmed by more detailed seismic evaluations, have served as the basis on which the University has prioritized and funded seismic risk mitigation work. Mike Pregnoff‘s fellow engineers knew him for innovative thinlung and good judgment, and his advice on problems was often sought. When Robert Preece was a regional engineer for a large steel fabricator, he says he always found Michael Pregnoff easily approachable when he went by Pregnoff‘s office to discuss structural steel details. Pregnoff recognized the fabricator’s strong preference for simple details that could be duplicated many times. Moreover, Pregnoff, ever on the lookout for ways to improve and simplify designs for economy, would also contact Preece for suggestions. Michael Pregnoff led the way in establishing a committee of the Structural Engineers Association of California to study and recommend standards for evaluating drying-shrinkage properties of concrete studies. This early interest in drying shrinkage also carried over into his service as chairman of the American Concrete Institute’s Committee on Deflection of Concrete Structures. Michael Pregnoff‘s intuition, engineering acumen, and practicality shine through in this very special oral history.

Frank E. McClure Consulting Structural Engineer March 1996

8 Chapter I The Early Years

"I came to this country in August 792ZI and in 1923 I started working for a man by the name C.H. Snyder. 'I

Scott: To the extent possible, we like to make these interviews full-life portraits of the person being interviewed. After giving some biographical information, please discuss the development of the structural engineering profession in northern California, with particular emphasis on seismic safety design. I am particularly interested in your observations about the main events in that story, what was done, why it was done, who the key people were, what they did, and what you did.

Education in Russia Pregnoff: Well, first thing, I was born in Russia in1900, and came here when I was 23. When I arrived in the U.S., I had just got my education in Vladivostok, Russia, and I was not an experienced engineer.

Scott: You had gotten your education in Russia. Let me back- track on that a bit. How early in your youth did you know, or think, that you wanted to be an engineer? Pregnoff: When I was about 10 years old, I loved nature. I would catch a wild bird, bring it home, feed it, tame it, and watch it grow. I would collect glass jars, and I'd make galvanic batteries out of them. I'd get 20 or 30 of them and I'd make a

9 Chapter I Connections: The EERl Oral History Series

machine worhng by static electricity. I had a First Job in U.S.-A Brick Factory little lab at home. Pregnoff: When I came here, I got my first job Scott: This was when you were a kid? in Alameda, with Clark Company, making terra Pregnoff: My father bought me a camera, cottas and bricks for building construction. They one of those cameras that have glass plates put me in front of the large oven where they instead of film rolls. I developed the plates baked the bricks. There were several kinds of myself, had a darkroom and everything. I made bricks, of different textures and so forth. When my own emulsion, as a new coat on a glass plate. the baking is all done, they wanted to deliver the bricks and pile them in various piles, sorting out Scott: So at an early age you were interested various texhlres. The fellow up in the cold oven in science and in experimenting? takes three bricks and throws them down to me to Pregnoff: Yes. Then I got my education in catch. In front of me is a little cart, and I'm sup- Russia, and Russian education is quite theoretical. posed to catch them and fill up that cart and roll it Scott: Strong on mathematics, probably. to a certain pile, put them there, and come back. He throws-you catch them, put them there. So Pregnoff: Oh, yes. Mathematics was good for me, it helped me. then I was working like that-mostly it was with Mexicans, maybe Italians. They don't know Scott: You got your education there, but where to put those bricks, so they ask me. That when you came here you had no experience? was the only thing about the job that was interest- Pregnoff: Yes. For a couple months I was a ing, otherwise I never waited so much for a lunch dishwasher. l'hen I got a job in a brick factory. time. It was three hours, and the same damn thing FinalIy I got a job with C.H. Snyder. over again.

Scott: You did not practice in Russia at all? Then a big fellow, Fred-he was the superin- Pregnoff: No, just got an education. By the tendent in that plant-he looks at me and says, way, our college was in Vladivostok and was "Come here." I thought, "Gee, I'm doing temporary. It was formed by the professors who something wrong; am I talking too much or left central Russia to come to Far East Vladi- what?" It's the second day I'm working, and he vostok. For a while it was not even Soviet terri- says, "Do like that; rub your palms. Look at tory-it was under a provisional government. that, blood, blood." I noticed-I am breaking So our college hnd of emphasized fast and my skin catching the rough bricks, so he gives practical work. For instance, we would go into me two pieces of rubber from a tire tube, with some factory and the professor would show us a two slots for two fingers so you can catch the boiler, as a problem. We would find how many bricks against rubber. I noticed all those work- shovels of coal they put in. One of us upstairs ers used them, too. This is the kind of men I took the samples of smoke. Then we checked met in US. To him I was a human being as well the temperature, and from this determined the as a worker. I was a laborer for 30 cents an efficiency of the boiler. It was a real job. hour, in 192 3.

10 Michael V. Pregnoff The Early Years Chapter I

When I had been worhng at the Clark Com- speak slowly, I do not understand English very pany more than a week, maybe it was the third well." He said, "Okay." He explained to me day, Fred calls me again. I thought, "Boy, he's that here we do not draw a line through the after me." He told me, "Those fellows don't vertical part of numeral 7. He talked to me for know the distinction between those bricks." He about 15 minutes, and he got the impression told me to stand here and tell them to which that I was poor or something. Then he looked pile to go. He just made a job for me. at me and says, "Well, okay, I'll give you a job."

Scott: You were traffic director for the brick Then I started to walk out, and as I turned the handlers. door knob to leave, he called and said, "Come here." My heart sank. I thought that he was Pregnoff: He found it was worthwhile for changing his mind. But he opened a drawer and me to get paid the 30 cents per hour and be took out a box more efficient. He was a good man, God bless of good instruments, German instruments. I knew what they were, although I this Fred. I'll never forget. He makes me think of the good things when I came to this country. did not have that kind. He says, "If you haven't got any instruments, you can use these." That's Nobody ever, ever told me I was a foreigner. I the kind of American became president of the Structural Engineers I met. I never forgot that. Association of Northern California in 1954. It's Scott: The draftsman job with Snyder came not that way in Russia or Europe. They're too right after the brick-factory job? nationalistic. Pregnoff: Yes, I couldn't get a draftsman's Starting Out With C.H. Snyder job right away. It took me about three or four months, so I could speak English a little better, Pregnoff: My practice starts from 1923. I and then I got the job with Snyder. came to this country in August 1922, and in 1923 I started worlung for a man by the name C.H. Snyder's Office: Learning C.H. Snyder. He was a structural and civil engineer. Chris Snyder was a very good struc- Practical Engineering tural engineer. If you don't mind, I'll tell you Pregnoff: When I started to work with Sny- about how I got the job with Snyder-do you der, they used me as a draftsman for a while. want to hear that? But I had been educated as an engineer, so I knew what I was doing. Very quickly Snyder Scott: Sure. gave me responsibility, and soon I became a Pregnoff: I came in to see him-I had pre- structural designer. Snyder's office had good pared a little mechanical detail, as a sample of standards for concrete beams, with typical my drawing. The only job I could get was a cross sections, footings. I studied those details draftsman's. Anyway I came to Snyder and carefully, copied them, and took them home showed him the drawing and he looked at it. and looked at them. He said, "You're crossing the 7s." I did not get the meaning of "crossing," and I said, "Please Scott: They had examples of typical details?

11 Chapter I Connections: The EERl Oral History Series

Pregnoff: Yes. Snyder had started it. They my company." That's the way they did it in had a foundation detail, concrete details, those days. veneer details, wood framing details, typical 'Then in about 1910 Snyder opened his own concrete block wall details, etc. office. He specialized in steel, concrete too, but Scott: In other words, the office standards mostly steel. He made wonderful drawings. were demonstrated in these typical or standard Every contractor, when they got his drawings, details? In part I suppose this would be to save they wanted to build his jobs. It was the same time, but it would also set the standards for the thing with us in my firm's practice. Lots of office's practices? contractors liked our jobs because they were well detailed. Pregnoff: Yes [shows book of standard details used in A1 Paquette's office, where intcrviews Scott: That made them easier to follow. were held]. Now here for instance, you have a Pregnoff: Yes, not much uncertainty. The detail of a concrete wall, and brick attached to most critical time for a job is when the estirna- it. They put it into the computer and the com- tor estimates the job. They give him maybe puter reproduces the detail on the drawing. three or four weeks, or maybe only two weeks. The computer makes the drawings now. Here's If you have the drawings more complete and a wood detail, a joist support at a stud wall. definite, there is no guesswork and the job can That's a truss joist with steel, here's how they be estimated cheaper. hang the sheathing. 'There are all kinds of these details. Here's a steel beam and joist coming in. F.F. Hall, Snyder's Chief Engineer Scott: 'That book is very voluminous and Pregnoff: I learned a lot of things from Fred comprehensive. [F.F.] Hall, Snyder's chief engineer. He Pregnoff: Yes. That is a collection of years of designed City Hall, years ago. experience. Those details come from collecting Scott: Fred Hall designed City Hall? details of past jobs. Come here. 1'11 show you something [points out computer-generated Pregnoff: That's right. He was chief engineer drafting being done in the next room]. Anyway, in Snyder's office, and was one of the main engi- Snyder's office is the office where I learned my neers I learned from. I remember, for example, practical engineering. when the roof collapsed during construction on one of our jobs in Berkeley. A telephone call Scott: That goes back to 1923? came, telling us about the roof collapse. A por- Pregnoff: Yes, to 1923. Before opening his tion of the roof had sagged-it really did not office, C.H. Snyder worked as a sales engineer collapse, didn't kill anybody, but sagged and was for Milliken Steel Company, and in those days, distorted. So right away somebody in the office years ago, he would come to the architect and said, "Let's look at the drawings, to see who say, "I will give you the layout and structural made a mistake." Everybody started looking steel sizes and you will give the steel contract to around and asking-"Who did that?"

12 Michael V. Pregnoff The Early Years Chapter I

Fred Hall says, "What the hell is the matter of the conservative engineers. I learned it from with you fellows? Who cares who? What I want Snyder and Hall. to know is how are we going to fix it? Think I guess I was very fortunate that I learned all how we're going to fix it, to repair it a soon as my practical engineering from a very fine possible. Don't think about who did it, we office, which had a good practice. I learned don't care." That's a good attitude. He was a from Snyder's office, which was one of the best. very good man, and he was one of those men If I had gotten in with some other young engi- who did some designing himself. He liked his neer, I would never be what I am, but fortu- engineering. For instance, he would come into nately I got in with Snyder. In San Francisco the office early, and be worlung when I came there were maybe five designers like Snyder, into the office and would say, "Good morning doing all the big buildings. These were Henry Mr. Hall," but he would not say, "Hello." I Brunnier, C.H. Snyder, L.H. Nishkian, E.L. understood why. He was just so much Cope, and Austin Earl. There were also engi- absorbed-he was concentrating. Hall and Sny- neers like [R.S.] Chew and Saph. Gus Saph was der were good at details. I was fortunate to be in a single-man office, and he was also a gentle- working for that office. They wanted concrete man engineer. I would sit and talk with him, members large so there was a lot of room for and learned a lot from him. Those older men reinforcement, a lot of room for concrete to like Chew, Saph, Cope, Fred Hall and Snyder flow. Some other engineers, following the code, were peers [of each other] back when I was only make them shallower, which architects like. starting. I started at 23, so I was a young man at that time. Scott: You're talking now about columns? Scott: They would have been in their 40s or Pregnoff: Beams and columns. Make them so when you were in your 20s. large, with plenty of room for concrete. Nam- rally the larger, the deeper the beam, the less Pregnoff: Now I ain older [86 years old at demand for the reinforcement. Theoretically, time of interview in 19861, and very few men the shallow beam having more steel is better, like me are left. I don't even know who they are. because it is the steel that provides ductility. Concrete is not ductile. So theoretically it is Seismic Design-Influence better to have the beam shallower and with a of R.S. Chew lot of reinforcement. But practically, it is better Pregnoff: In those days, however, when I to make it deeper and have less reinforcement. started to work for Snyder, we did not design That's what I learned from them. The size of a for earthquakes at all. The exception was when member is decided by the span. If a beam is 20 Chris Snyder was engaged in designing the feet long, it will be 20 inches deep; if 14 feet present Opera House, about 1928. At that time long, 14 inches deep. But some engineers, with there was another engineer in private practice, a 20-foot long beam will make it only 16 inches in a one-man engineering office, who would do deep. I really think that I am more or less one some of Snyder's work. His name was R.S.

13 Chapter I Connections: The EERI Oral History Series

Chew. I think he was an Englishman. He was At that time there were no local earthquake quite a gentleman, a real good engineer, and a codes, but as I said, I was educated by R.S. researcher, too. Chew, and so designed the building to resist earthquakes. It is a structural steel frame Occasionally, Snyder would send me to Chew, building, and I used diagonal bracing to resist who would do some part of Snyder's work. lateral forces. When Chris's office was loaded, he would give Chew part of the work, so I would go to R.S. Chew's office and work with him-do some Damping and Brick WaLls drafting and computation. He instilled in me a Pregnoff: Chew also wrote a book on earth- desire to study the effects of earthquakes on quake design.' He believed that buildings buildings. should be flexible. He also believed that structural steel frame buildings with exterior rein- I had gotten acquainted with Chew at the time forced brick walls were the best for earthquake of the Tokyo earthquake in 1923. Chew and I construction. Better than concrete walls, talked about it a lot, and I learned a lot from because brick walls have the ability to give and him. Many engineers thought, like Snyder, "If work together with the steel-we call it damp- a building is designed for 30 or SO pounds per ing. Damping is a very important factor in an square foot of resistance to wind, it's good earthquake-resistant building, in addition to enough." In those days also, engineers like the structural resistance and the force resisted Snyder thought the exterior concrete walls by the columns. It dampens the energy that the around the building or brick wall, called cur- building receives from an earthquake. Damp- tain walls, were there to keep the weather out ing can save a building. and they were not considered as resisting lateral forces due to quake at all. Chew considered a bare steel building the worst, because it may synchronize with the Then, in 1928, when Snyder's office was earth motion and wobble more and more. All designing the Opera House, Chew was the nonstructural elements-like regular non- engaged by Snyder to run the job, and I was structural partitions-produce quite a bit of Chew's assistant. Even back at that time, on resistance to earthquakes. Even if they are fail- that job we tried to design the structure for 10 ing, they're also working at their utmost and percent of gravity horizontal force. Snyder had they provide damping. Some of those older tall never done that sort of thing himself, but Chew buildings in San Francisco did not collapse, but did on the Opera House, which was a structural withstood the 1906 earthquake, and then were steel building. Chew said, "We will put a hori- damaged mostly by fire. The nonstructural ele- zontal force of 10 percent of gravity in our ments helped them to resist earthquake forces. computations and see how much effect that will

have on our sizes [of columns and beams]. 1. Chew. R.S.. An ADDroximate Measure of Eavthqzlake Effect 'on Framed Stmcturei [Later, in 19391 I designed the 17-story Tower Self-published by Richard Sanders Chew, San of the Hoover Library at Stanford University. Francisco, CA, i93 3.

14 Michael V. Pregnoff The Early Years Chapter 1

Chew believed brick walls to be best because person standing off sort of to himself, and said, they absorb the energy of the motion. Con- "That's R.S. Chew." crete walls, being stiff, do not yield the way brick walls do. 1906 San Francisco Earthquake Photograph Scott: Brick walls yield along the joints? Pregnoff: I have that picture right here in my copy of the book. The photo is titled "The Pregnoff: Yes. There is mortar between the Burning City." Many times in my practice, I bricks, and each layer of mortar cracks a bit and have been asked to evaluate an existing tall there's more play. In San Francisco a lot of tall building in San Francisco. Can we use the steel buildings had brick exterior walls, and building? Can we remodel it and use it, or is it stone exterior, too. dangerous? How will it behave? I always Scott: It was the combination of brick and steel showed this picture to people; it shows tall that Chew said was good? buildings still standing. They do not meet present-day code requirements for earthquake- Pregnoff: Yes. resistant construction, but they have an inher- Scott: Was Chew the principal person who ent strength. Our observation shows that instilled in you the conviction that earthquake buildings of this type-structural steel frame, design ought to be done? with bending moment resisting connections in all joints-give a good account, as it shows in Pregnoff: Yes, he was one of the first persons the picture. who did. I was a young engineer, 28 years old, having been born in Russia in 1900. Chew The buildings in question are still being used in instilled in me the desire to study the vibration San Francisco. The Call Building, Mutual of buildings during earthquake motion. This is Bank Building, Mills Building-all of them are quite a complicated problem, a very compli- still used. Some of them were burned out, like cated problem. And Chew instilled in me the the Call Building, as it was called at that time, desire to design buildings for earthquakes. at the corner of Third and Market. In some of them, like the Palace Hotel, the steel columns Scott: Once when interviewing Henry got so hot that they bent and buckled. Later Degenkolb, he got out Freeman's old book' they were straightened out. The Sheraton-Pal- and opened it to a composite panoramic photo- ace Hotel is still being used. graph of the city burning in 1906. One of the panels showed a group of people on top of the This is a good picture. It shows that we Fairmont Hotel observing the progress of the shouldn't be too panicky, saying everything is fire, which was then still mostly in the eastern going to collapse. Of course, the unreinforced and central part of town. Henry pointed to one brick buildings, of which there are a lot in San Francisco, are very dangerous. 2. Freeman, John R., Earthquake Damage and Earthquake Insurance. New York: McGraw-Hill, Some of the mortar in those unreinforced 1932. masonry buildings is so poor that you can get

15 Chapter 1 Connections: The EERl Oral History Series

it out with a pencil. Sometimes you can dig it a book and published it, but he didn't sell it. out with your thumbnail. It is more sand than Typewritten, on 8-11'2-by-1 l-inch pages. I have cement. They say that such mortar is only try- two copies, a first edition and second edition. If ing to keep the bricks apart, instead of sticking you don't care which one, I'll give it to you. them together. Scott: I will borrow one and photocopy it.3 Scott: But Chew emphasized the combination Pregnoff: I observed something else about of bricks, and good mortar, of course, and rein- R.S. Chew when we were doing the Opera forcement. Because with reinforcement, if the House in 1928. We had one Swedish engineer brick part starts to give a little bit too niuch, it's with whom I disagreed on some details-I held back by the reinforcement. didn't like the way he had done them. I was Chew's assistant, so I went to Chew and said, More About R.S. Chew "Look at how he is doing this-he's wrong." Scott: Can you tell me a little bit more about Without even looking at the details, Chew said, R.S. Chew? Was he indeed a practicing engi- "You should say, I think he's wrong." That's a neer in that picture from the 1906 earthquake. gentleman for you. You don't say, "I want you How old a fellow was he in the '20s when you to do that." You don't speak that way to the worked with him? people you are working with. Instead you say, Pregnoff: When I worked with him [begnning "Let's do that." A lot of us do not compliment a in 19281, I suppose he was about SO years old, and person for the good things he's doing, but I was 28. [Gm] Saph was about Chew's age. when an error comes in, we give him hell. We should remember that each one of us has more Scott: So he was quite a young man when he good points than bad. was on top of the Fairmont in 1906. Pregnoff: I don't know why it's of so much Few Designed for Earthquake interest to you. What the hell difference does it Resistance make? He was older than me. He was a peer of Gus Saph. Those people, like Chew and Gus Scott: While you are on this topic, let me ask Saph, didn't want to open large offices. They a couple more questions about early seismic just hired one draftsman. They were satisfied design or lack of it. You indicated that after the with that and they did a good job. 1923 Tokyo earthquake there were discussions about earthquake design among the San Fran- Scott: Chew and Saph both operated pretty cisco engineers. much as one-engineer firms? Pregnoff: Yes. After the 1923 Tokyo earth- Pregnoff: Yes. Chew had certain clients that quake, San Francisco structural engineers at were with him who were happy. He did high- their meetings discussed problems of the class work. The telephone company was giving him jobs. He did what was right. He did it intu- 3. Chew put out three editions of his self-published itively. And he had his own theories. He wrote book-1933, 1938, and 1944.

16 Michael V. Pregnoff The Early Years Chapter 1

design of buildings to resist earthquakes. They puted forces due to quakes. Because engineers talked about seismic design, but only a few, like discussed earthquake problems after the great R.S. Chew practiced it. Chew designed build- 1923 quake in Japan, however, I feel that per- ings for the telephone company. He was their haps a minority of them in San Francisco com- favorite engineer. They gave him jobs. Henry puted lateral forces induced by earthquakes in Degenkolb, a San Francisco engineer, said the buildings they designed. recently that while they were remodeling some building that R.S. Chew had done, they saw in Tying Buildings Together his details that he had designed for earthquakes. He tied all his buildings together, Pregnoff: San Francisco did not adopt an thinking of earthquake forces. earthquake code until 1948. Thus, there was no Like Hank Brunnier said, "Make them act as a earthquake code in San Francisco until 1948. unity." If the buildings in Mexico [in 19851 had Los Angeles started to design for earthquakes been tied together with large steel bars in con- before San Francisco. I guess [in San Francisco] crete beams, how could you pull them apart? In there was too much influence of the builders, the photos you can see beams at columns that or somebody. They just don't want to spend got separated and fell to the ground. The floors money on earthquake design. Anyway, Los pancaked, one floor on top of another. Angeles was the first one to start.

Scott: Was design for earthquake resistance Scott: I gather that engineers used some rules mainly a matter of the judgment and practice of thumb to guide them in trying to design for of the individual structural engineer? earthquake resistance? Pregnoff: Very few engineers designed for Pregnoff: Yes. I mentioned Henry Brunnier, earthquakes. In those days, there weren't so a prominent San Francisco engineer. He used many engineers in San Francisco. The good to say that the most important thing is to tie offices, maybe five or six of them, were run by buildings together so that each acts as a unity in men with judgment. They tied their buildings one direction, and also in the other direction. I together well. They would not design unrein- think that was what some buildings in the forced brick buildings of 3-4-5 stories high. recent Mexico City earthquake lacked. If you They used steel frames. look at the pictures of the damage by the Mexi- I cannot elaborate freely on the prevalence or can earthquake, you can see the beams just sep- nonprevalance of seismic design practice in the arated from the columns and collapsed. Some '20s. In 1925 when I was worlung for Snyder, people say that in Mexico the soil caused large Chew showed me in his office how he com- vibrations, but also their design probably puted lateral forces due to earthquakes in the wasn't as good or as carefully detailed as ours. buildings he designed. I know that Snyder designed buildings for wind forces only. No Scott: In terms of tying the structure one, except Chew, ever told me that he com- together?

17 Chapter 1 Connections: The EERl Oral History Series

Pregnoff: Yes. Also, their concrete probably wasn't as good as ours. We control our concrete better than they do. We have inspectors.

18 Chapter 2 Observations Based on Practice

"If you do something that is good structurally, it's good aesthetically, because forces are flowing. I/

Pregnoff: I had a pretty good life, and I was pretty lucky. I am now 86 years old, so I don't regret it if I die. I got so much enjoyment in life, it never refused anything. I think structural engineering is a good profession if you are more or less good, but if you're not, it's no good no matter what the profession is.

Architect Has the Say Pregnoff: If I had a son now, I would like him to be an engineer, but not in [structural design and] buildings, like me. That is because we work always with architects. When you work with architects, as I told you, the fate of a building is decided by the architect as far as earthquake is concerned. Some of them make the design complicated-some of the them make the buildings round or octagonal, or cut out some portions, or do all kinds of things. You [as engineer] have to adapt yourself to those situations. After all, people don't see your engineering, but they do see their architecture. Some of the round buildings, octagonal buildings, etc., look good on the outside.

19 Chapter 2 Connections: The EERI Oral History Series

But [now] I'd like to be a sanitary engineer or you just said, it is clear that you see it as a very highway engineer-then you are independent important matter. entirely. There's a mechanical engineer in the Pregnoff: Yes. The first earthquake regula- building, [but] of course he works with architects. tions in San Francisco were enacted in 1948. The architects are not sympathetic to earth- Scott: Your concern is that the architect tends quake problems-it interferes with their plan- to have the ultimate say in building design? ning. No engineer can make irregular buildings Pregnoff: Absolutely. He has to, because he behave properly during an earthquake. And gets the job froin the owner. The owner architects don't want seismic joints as separa- doesn't go to me, he goes to an architect. The tions. But when you face that [design] problem owner doesn't pay us money, he pays the archi- with an architect, you have to do the best you tect and the architect pays us. Some architects can. You have to give them the impression that it were a little stingy in paying us our fee, trying is impossible for the engineer to do everything. to get more for themselves. You had to argue The fate of the building during an earthquake with them a little bit. is decided by the architect. Good architects Other architects, high-class architects, big engage the engineer and have faith in him. architects, too, were our clients. Like Tim They ask the engineer to develop a sound Flueger, Arthur Brown [Bakewell & Brown], scheme, instead of giving him a drawing of then Stone, Marichini, Patterson. Some archi- their layout and expecting him to adapt to it. tects argue, but Ed Stone doesn't argue. Rex The good engineer is the one who can say no Allen knew more about hospitals than doctors. to the architect. He was our client; we did a lot of work for him. The bigger the architect, the easier he is to deal with. The smaller the architect, the less easy, Scott: Ed Stone was one of those who were because he is not as imaginative. When we had a different? famous New York architect, Ed Stone, anything Pregnoff: Yes. He was high class. He gets a I told him was acceptable, because he had imag- fee of 8 or 10 percent-smaller architects get 6 ination. We designed the Stanford University perccnt. Nowadays, sometimes the mechanical Hospital for him-a big building-and anything cost is 40 percent of the total cost of the we asked for, he said, "Okay,Mike, go ahead." project, and 20 percent is structural, adding up We designed a large Pasadena vitamin pill fac- to 60 percent. So the architect is doing 40 per- tory for him. He asked me to plan that build- cent or even less of the total. Architectural ing. I planned it in concrete, flat-slab costs are slightly less than mechanical. construction, the cheapest. A concrete beams- and-girders scheme is a little more expensive, Dealing With Architects and steel frame still more expensive. Scott: Would you discuss the issue of rela- Scott: These were three alternative building tions with architects a little more. Froin what types?

20 Michael V. Pregnoff Observations Based on Practice Chapter 2

Pregnoff: That's right. I was supposed to good-looknig structure, the way Bob Matheu give him the building schemes, indicating drew it. which I would recommend. We had a meeting Scott: So the two-architecture and engi- with Ed Stone in his office, my partner neering-came to focus very well here. But Matheu, and two or three of his men. I presented three schemes. Ed asked, "Mike, which Matheu the engineer originally drew the arch, rather than Stone the architect. is the best scheme?" I said, "The steel." "Let's use the steel," was his decision. Pregnoff: Yes. He drew the arch in our office to a large scale. They scaled from that, and we Concrete Arches: Combining analyzed it for earthquake forces. Architecture and Engineering Pregnoff: We also worked with Ed Stone on Colleagues the Perpetual Savings Building in Los Angeles. Jim Styatta.: Learning the Ropes to He wanted the exterior wall be with contin- Scott: As you discuss your practice, I want to uous concrete arches, and asked, "Wliat kind of ask you about Jim Stratta, especially because I arches should they be? What is the best for think you were one of the key people he you?" My partner, Bob Matheu, went to the learned the ropes from. Frank McClure told blackboard and drew a freehand arch saying, me that he thought Jim learned his earthquake "This is structurally the best shape." Ed said, engineering from you. Did Jim learn a lot about "Okay, that's the way we're going to make it." seismic design when he worked with you? That was one of the first concrete arches we did with reusable moving plastic forms. It's a 9- Pregnoff: All engineering, not only earth- story structure, quite large. quake engineering. Everything. Scott: I take it the arch was a key architectural He worked for me, and then he [Stratta] and Al feature? Simpson left and opened their office. Occa- sionally they would call me up and ask me Pregnoff: The arch was architectural, but at something-for a little consultation. Once, same time also structural. Bob Matheu drew it. Stratta called me and said, "Mike, let's go to And Stone said, "It looks good that way." lunch." I said to myself, "They have another Scott: Was Matheu's initial drawing of the question." So when we started to eat, I said, arch a matter of his aesthetic intuition, or intu- "What have you to say?" He said, "We two ition based on the engineering and structural [Simpson and Stratta] started to talk to each role of the arch? other, and we thought what lucky guys we Pregnoff: Engineering. Take a Greek or were, workuig for you. That's how much we Roman column; they were good structurally learned from you, so we asked you to have and also architecturally. If you do something lunch, and now we're telling you." that is good structurally, it's good aesthetically, To me, it was worth more than money. More because forces are flowing. To me it's a very than money. Because people appreciate. I never

21 Chapter 2 Connections: The EERl Oral History Series

tell people that they are worbng for me. I work Our Style: Materials, with them, together. They're working with me. Workmanship, and Inspection Pregnoff: The Pregnoff and Matheu style of Graham and Kellam; Paquette and Associates worbng was first we received the project from Pregnoff: Pete Kellam also worked for us, the architect. Then Bob Matheu and I would he's at Graham and Kellam now. Graham sit down, asking, "How are we going to do it?" inherited his office from William] Adrian- The choice of materials is very important for who was a big engineer. This office of Paquette the resistance of a building to a quake. Suppose and Associates, where we are now talking, was you made it out of brittle material. Naturally, it [Frederick] Kellberg's. He designed the Cow will behave differently than if there's a more flexible material to absorb the motion and Palace, a tremendous big building, and a very absorb the energy. We try to choose proper original design. Paquette's office was inherited materials. Unreinforced brick, of course, is not from him [Kellberg]. Mr. Paquette is more like good, and they won't allow you to build with it. me, he's a little younger than me, maybe by four years-we're of the same vintage. Even with reinforced brick, however, workmanship is very important when you're putting all the little pieces together. It is very important Concern About Shift Toward how you place that mortar, how you fill in all Bigger Offices those joints. A block wall is a wall of hollow Pregnoff: There is a tendency now to build concrete blocks. Every cell is filled with con- LIP big offices, where owners more or less act as crete grout and a bar is inserted in it. And the businessmen, and hire the capable men to do bars ought to lap properly. Workmanship is the engineering. This is not as good as it used very important. They pour three feet at a time to be with smaller offices. and tamp, and do that again and again. Scott: Is your concern about size in part Sometimes they pour from the top-the hole is only 4 inches by 4 inches, but they'll pour 10 because the men at the upper level-the princi- feet. We had an occasion on one of our jobs, pals-can't really practice engineering, that involving a 1-story school with reinforced they have to be engaged in administration or block walls. Every block is supposed to be filled office management? What about the engineer- with concrete grout, so it will be good for ing practice of the other 190 people in the 200- earthquake forces. Two or three years later the member office? school decided to make an addition, and they Pregnoff: Those offices also engage special wanted a door in the wall. promotion men who solicit jobs for them. When the wall was cut for the door, they found They subscribe to special magazines to give the bars were there, but no grout. Because the them leads ahead of time-somebody is plan- pouring was not careful and was very erratic, ning all the time to get new jobs. they didn't fill in the all of the wall voids. All

22 Michael V. Pregnoff Observations Based on Practice Chapter 2

walls were tapped with a hammer to determine there and the superintendent didn't see them which areas had voids. Many areas were uncov- put a newspaper in to stop the concrete grout. ered. They had to drill holes in the shells of blocks and pump the grout into those voids. Scott: They stopped it so the concrete would The school district paid maybe $30,000 for not go on down, so they saved themselves a lot that. They could have sued us, but they did not. of concrete? Inspection was bad; I don't want to say that the Pregnoff: Yes. The uncle refilled the wall at contractors willfully did that. no cost to the university.

Scott: This is something that the contractor would have been supposed to handle? Important: Inspection During Construction Pregnoff: That's correct. Scott: So it is important that a construction Scott: Also, if it was a school, wouldn't it have job be inspected regularly while it is in process? been under Field Act inspection requirements? Pregnoff: Yes. Inspection is very important. Pregnoff: Yeah, it was inspected, but when In our office at certain times we had 65 projects they're pouring you aren't going to stand under construction and in the design stage at checking item by item. It's a continuous one time. We had our own inspectors, and the inspection-the inspector is walking around inspectors were going around to all the jobs, all everywhere. But you just never know every- the time. We had three inspectors. We bought thing that happens. them cars. They drove in our cars and An uncle of my partner, a general contractor, inspected the jobs. was building many Stanford University struc- When a job starts, we have a construction tures. He built a block wall 60 feet long and 16 meeting. We give the contractor two letters. feet high. It stood there for quite a while, and One letter says, "Our inspector has no right to then they also decided to make a door in it. change anything shown in the drawing. Any When they cut for the door, there was rein- changes should be made in writing-in a forcement but no grout. request made to us and answered in writing." A They started investigating. You know what the second letter stated some particulars-no con- subcontractor had done? At the top of the wall crete should be poured before our inspector he put a newspaper down for a foot below, then has inspected it, etc. just poured the top. A crook. A general contrac- Some of the architects in our agreements said tor does not pour walls, he gets a subcontractor, that during construction the engineer should a concrete man who will mix and pour that con- visit the job at least every two weeks and report crete grout. The uncle had his own superinten- in writing if, in general, the job is built accord- dent, who was wallung around. Now, that man ing to drawings. We visited oftener-our man was a good contractor, and yet here this just drove around all the time. They can just occurred with a good contractor. Crooks were glance and immediately see whether the con-

23 Chapter 2 Connections: The EERl Oral History Series

tractor is doing right. The contractor would then they re rushing to do everything. On throw things around, ride across the bars, bend account of rush, the work is not good. them, do all kinds of things, fail to clean them. Scott: The contractors have deadlines, and Rain, foundation filled with water. also they're trying to save on employee costs. Scott: So it was your practice to do inspection? Pregnoff: In Russia they have a rhyme, that Pregnoff: Yes. That is very important. translated goes something like: "If you rush, people are laughing at you. If you rush, you Scott: Did you do that from way back at the beginning? make a fool out of yourself." What is similar to that in English? Pregnoff: Yes. As long as I practiced. We inspected to protect ourselves, and of course Scott: One rough approximation is "haste we're protecting the owner also. I think the makes waste." main problem is a lack of inspection. We asked Pregnoff: After every earthquake-even the our engineers to go Sundays and look at the recent one in Mexico [1985]-it is always said jobs they designed. They would charge us for that the buildings were not built according to it-that's their time. If you are going to inter- drawings. In some buildings the reinforcing view Stratta, ask him, "Do engineers go and bars, instead of being welded, were tied look at their jobs?" together with wires. Some engineers don't do that. It costs money. Scott: They departed from the drawings? We were fortunate that our fee was high because we had large jobs, and big architects. PregnoiX Yes. They departed &om the drawings. When the architect is smaller, and on smaller jobs, he charges less for his work and the engi- A World War I1 Recollection: neer gets less money. The end result is they Designing Concrete Ships can't afford inspection. They don't even look at Pregnoff: During World War 11, the firm the jobs unless the contractors don't under- Ellison and King, Structural Engineers, San stand the drawings and call the engineers. Francisco, were commissioned to design con- Then they'll answer. Otherwise the engineers crete ships, and I was engaged by them to be in don't go there to the jobs. charge of structural design. The ships had no Scott: They don't even visit the job sites? propelling power. Several of them were built in San Francisco and towed to the Caribbean Sea Pregnoff: Oh, no. You'd be surprised what to get the bauxite ore. The ships were 300 feet- the actual practices are. Say you have a big job. long, and divided by bulkheads into 30-foot It's a concrete building, and all bars should be compartments [holds]. already in place in the entire area. Neverthe- less, they're pouring, yet they have not finished Fundamentally, ships are designed to be capa- placing the bars in certain spots. Rush develops ble during storms of spanning between crests on every job. Rush develops immediately, and of waves 300 feet apart, which is the length of

24 Michael V. Pregnoff Observations Based on Practice Chapter 2

the ship. Also it must be capable of cantilever- When it comes to computations, one of them ing 1.50 feet on each side of its midpoint when can make computations, but he cannot develop being lifted by a wave. Ships are also designed workable details, while another fellow who is to resist water pressure for different conditions not as good in computation is good at details. of loading and unloading. Its interior partitions [bulkheads]are designed to resist the pressure Shifts in Work Patterns from the water. That way, if the ship is torpe- doed, it is designed so that it will not sink. [Editor'?Note: Over the years, Pregnoff s practice and work patterns underwent significant In those days we had no computer programs. changes, which are outlined briefly here. He We solved mathematical equations by using was a very hard worker, but after reaching his slide rules and electric calculators. When we 50s, he looked to reliable colleagues for more start to use theoretical equations we have to of his firm's work, spending additional time on assume trial sizes of all continuous members. engineering association activities. He also For this task I used Ira Kessy. He was able to began making frequent trips to Tahoe, where compute the preliminary sizes which were he enjoyed his cabin and could pursue such close, on the safe side, to the finally computed interests as nature study, hihng, and carpentry. sizes. I do not know his educational back- His opening comment that follows relates to a ground; we never talked about it. period, probably shortly after World War 11, Somehow, he was breahng complicated prob- when reliance on trusted colleagues had lems into simple elements of structural enabled him to modify his long-time pattern of mechanics. Apparently, he was free of the long hours devoted to office work. Later, with mathematical straitjacket, which could other- the death of his senior partner, Hall, and depar- wise blind him and prevent him from using his ture of some key employees, things shifted great insight, perception, and intuition. Some again in ways he describes below.] engineers develop intuition, judgment; they Scott: You told me that earlier you typically even don't know why they do it that way. Just maintained a heavy schedule, working nights the way Bob Matheu drew the curves for the and so on. When was that? Perpetual Savings Building I mentioned. Pregnoff: Before Bob Matheu joined us, Scott: How do you develop that ability? when I was with Fred Hall. When I designed Pregnoff: You're born with it, and you the PG&E building, for example. Many jobs I develop it more by using it. Some engineers designed all by myself. I loved to work. [Then] [on the other hand]-and I have had them in Fred and Bob told me, "Mike, you work hard; my office-were good at mathematics when go to your cabin." They wanted me to go, so I they were in high school or college. They did. So in the summertime I just went up to thought they would be good in engineering Tahoe every week and stayed there for three too, so they decided to be engineers. But days. After that I would only watch how every- they're not engineers, they're mathematicians. thing was going on.

25 Chapter 2 Connections: The EERI Oral History Series

Later Fred Hall, my partner, died and I and ness needed a lot of towers, and our firm was Matheu ran the jobs. We had good men like designing them as a major business. Eventually Stratta and Simpson. They had reached a stage we formed the PMB Corporation. I like to that we didn't have to worry. They knew our design buildings and not oil towers. I sold out style, too. When our office got a new job then, my shares. So did my partner Bob Matheu. I would work only in the preliminary stage. Later, demand for oil towers disappeared. PMB corporation was taken over by the Bechtel Cor- In starting a new job in our office, Matheu and poration. Still later Beebe-practically I would determine the steel, what centers the retired-is maintaining the job of director in columns are, etc. We would determine prelimi- the corporation. nary sizes. We know the people who estimate the job quickly, we would tell the architect how much it will cost. Then we would give it to Jim Chairman of ACI Committee Stratta, our engineer, to carry out the scheme. Pregnoff: For eight years, I was chairman of He tells the draftsman to lay it out, and he the Deflection of Concrete Structures Com- makes formal computations. Finally, they make mittee for the American Concrete Institute drawings and specifications. (ACI). We produced a report, practically a Later Simpson and Stratta left and opened book. I worked hard at it. I did not spend much their own business. Then, years later, Simpson time on our business then. lost his life in a fire that occurred in the Yacht Scott: When would that have been? Club in San Francisco. That was too bad. Jim Pregnoff: Starting in 1956 or 1957. Then Stratta is now retired. He's doing consulting Branson took the committee chairmanship engineering on electronic buildings-he's over. I'm still a member of that committee, but expert at that. I'm not chairman now. In about 1945, when the war ended, the name of our firm was Hall and Pregnoff. Matheu Designing: Intuition and Judgment had started to work for us in 1942, but he went to war. He came back when the war ended. Pregnoff: We did a lot of reconstruction of Later he was admitted into partnership, and the Stanford University buildings. The Stanford name of the firm became Hall, Pregnoff and University buildings have the sandstone exte- Matheu. When Fred Hall died in 1955, the rior walls. They didn't want to lose them dur- name of the firm became Pregnoff and Matheu. ing construction, so when we were taking the Now Matheu runs the firm Pregnoff and inside works out, we temporarily supported the free-standing walls so they won't collapse dur- Matheu in Palo Alto. I am no longer a partner. I am doing some consulting work on my own. ing a quake at construction time. We reconstructed maybe six or seven buildings at In about 1970 Ken Beebe, our partner, started Stanford. This was seismic retrofitting. Then to take the jobs of designing the large ocean oil later some other engineers reconstructed other pumping platforms and towers. The oil busi- Stanford buildings. I remember one firm say-

26 Michael V. Pregnoff Observations Based on Practice Chapter 2

ing, "We followed Pregnoff and Matheu's Unconsciously you think-this looks kind of style." They did it our way because they small, I'd better make it bigger. couldn't do it any better way. They gave us a compliment. Learning Engineering in a That's why I said a building should not neces- Good Office sarily be designed by the computations. After Pregnoff: You get this by practicing engi- computations are made, you have to look them neering. Practice makes perfect. You have tc over and see if they give you reasonable sizes. practice your structural engineering. I don't In planning a job, I determine sizes first, with think a college boy, no matter how bright he my preliminary computations, and if the final can open an office and begin to practice. He computation does not quite agree, I make it a first has to work for someone else. That's what little bit larger or maybe a little bit smaller. lawyers do. Young lawyers pay other lawyers. That's planning the job. Pay them to help the younger ones learn the Look at the old-timers-the Greeks and those business. I think every young engineer should other old-timers of many years ago. There were go to a good office and work with them for no computers then, there were no slide rules. about five years, then open his own office. The Romans-look at the buildings they built. Scott: Isn't that very important for mainte- How did they build those buildings? Using nance of the standards of engineering? their heads and intuition. It's a mystery. Some- times we check those old buildings, and every- Pregnoff: It is, but they don't do it the way thing checks. We check them with the most doctors do. When a doctor graduates from col- precise computations and they are just right. lege, he goes to a hospital and works as an intern. They work as interns for three or four Do you know how the Romans established the years. In our practice they give an engineer level? They would dig a ditch all around and credit for two years of college, as if it were pour it full of water-that gives them the level. equal to one year of practical experience. Thus, There is such a thing as intuition, and appre- to get a license, two years of college count as hension. What does the word "apprehension" one year of practice. But really it is not worth mean to you? Fear? But not necessarily fear? that much. Two years of college couldn't even compare with one year of practice. Scott: Well, apprehension could mean being concerned. Or "apprehend" can also mean to Scott: You mean practice is more demanding? perceive or be aware of something. Pregnoff: Yes, it's much different. In 1928 Pregnoff: That's correct. So you have to we were designing the San Francisco Opera have intuition, and also have to have apprehen- House. The office engaged an engineer with a sion. You have to have a sense of-How am I master's degree from the University of Califor- doing? An1 I doing it right? You have to watch nia. Our chief engineer, R.S. Chew, gave him yourself. You do it kind of unconsciously. the job of designing floor beams. Chcw said to

27 Chapter 2 Connections: The EERI Oral History Series

me, "Mike, give him the weights." Knowing you do not have sizes. You determine them by the total weight on a beam, he can design the trials and computations. beam. The weights were given him, with the sketches for various architectural features. Engineering Is More Then we left him alone. Than Computation About one and one-half hours later he comes to Pregnoff: You're asking me about my prac- me and says, "Mr. Pregnoff, I don't even know tice, and I will tell you my views on engineer- how to start." I said, "I'll tell you," and I ing. Engineering is not necessarily the explained to him how to recognize various computations. You don't build buildings by details on the plan and combine them into computations. No matter how good a mathe- weights. College did not teach him how to read matician you are, with that alone you're not architectural plans. In college they give you going to design good buildings. You have to beams and their weights and sizes, and you are have structural experience. asked to find moments and stresses. In practice

28 Chapter 3 Seismic Design Considerations

"Some engineers do not detail the connections for adequate energy absorption. They do not provide enough ductility. 'I

Brick and Steel Pregnoff: When a building moves perpendicular to a brick wall surface, the brick wall without reinforcement will fall out. But when the force is parallel to the brick wall, the masonry gives and the steel frame takes the forces. If it was concrete, being very stiff, it would try to resist large forces and it would eventually crack. Structural steel is a combination of beams and columns in bending, and is not as stiff as a concrete wall. But a brick wall is also not as stiff as concrete, so it gives a chance to the steel to carry the stresses. By the time the earthquake is over-maybe in 15 seconds-the brick wall will crack, but in general with lesser damage than concrete, and is easier to fix. That's why R.S. Chew believed in brick walls with steel frames.

Structural Steel Alone Pregnoff: I believe in structural steel alone. I would not use concrete exterior walls. I would make all exterior walls of sheet

29 Chapter 3 Connections: The EERl Oral History Series

metal. Walls of painted aluminum are flexible The architect, Arthur Brown, wanted concrete and they are also light. With metal wall panels, exterior walls with terra cotta facing attached to small bolts are sufficient. The panel is light and them. I said to myself that these concrete walls flexible; it only weighs 2 pounds per square would be stiffer than the steel frames. There- foot instead of 50 pounds. Some buildings like fore, they would try to resist the earthquake that are built in San Francisco. One is on Mar- forces first, whereas the steel would not resist ket Street and one on Sacramento Street. the earthquake unless and until the concrete Now, however, they use precast concrete walls, walls start to fail and crack, when the steel which are heavy. They weigh 50 to 75 pounds frame will begin to resist all forces. By “failing” per square foot of wall surface. They attach the I don’t mean that the walls will collapse. walls with connectors, bolts-but these bolts They’re reinforced, and they’ll stick to the steel. may not move enough in the holes with small So I went to the chief engineer of PG&E and clearance, and the walls may crack and fall out. told him that I would like to design the walls to Scott: So you especially like construction resist all the earthquake forces independently that uses steel, with metal wall panels? of the steel, and at the same time, I would also have the steel carry all the earthquake forces. Pregnoff: Yes, it’s the best. The extra cost could be $1,500 to $2,000. He said, “Mike, this is the way to do it,” and that is Redundancy in Seismic Design the way I’ve done it. Pregnoff: In 1946, an addition to the PG&E Scott: You were building redundancy into building was planned to be a structural steel the design-having two systems independently frame with moment resisting connections. able to resist seismic forces. That was in 1946, and there was still no seismic code in San Francisco, but I designed the Pregnoff: That PG&E building was a 1946 building for earthquake forces. I designed the addition to the existing 1925 building building for the shear force at the bottom of [designed by C.H. Snyder] on Market Street. the building equal to 5 percent of the weight of Later they built another addition, which I did the building, plus 5 percent of live load per not design. I made a separation between Sny- square foot. For the shear at the top I used one- der’s 1925 building and my 1946 building. The third of the shear at the bottom. linoleum buckled at the separation during the Daly City earthquake of March 22, 1957, but Scott: Five percent lateral force resistance? there was no structural damage to either build- Pregnoff: Yes. It will give the trapezoidal ing. However, the Daly City earthquake didn’t variation of the shear along the height of the cause much damage in San Francisco. building. The trapezoidal variation takes care of higher modes of vibration during an earth- Save quake. A tall building vibrates with a funda- Ductile Design Can Buildings mental first mode and several higher modes-as Pregnoff: The way the code is written now, it many as the number of stories in the building. does not guarantee that a building will not be

30 Michael V. Pregnoff Seismic Design Considerations Chapter 3

damaged in an earthquake. It [a building There has to be a very large sustained ground designed to code] may be damaged, but it will motion to bring the entire building into a large not collapse. We cannot use elastic analysis to distortion and collapse it. When an engineer provide for a very severe earthquake. The build- designs a joint, it is his responsibility to provide ing would have to be built like a battleship. We that ductility will be maintained. But some contemplate that the building will be damaged, engineers do not detail the connections for and in the very extreme vibration the steel will adequate energy absorption. They do not pro- go beyond the elastic limit and go into yleld. vide enough ductility. Yield would absorb the earthquake energy. Scott: You are referring to designing a joint The rules are not strong enough to resist earth- so it remains ductile despite stress? quakes in the elastic state of structure. There- fore, codes are written in the expectation that Pregnoff: Yes, with proper lapping. For in a very large earthquake a building will begin instance, in flat slab construction, in my jobs all to crack, maybe quite a bit, and the steel will go bottom bars of slabs, at the columns, pass into the ductile range beyond the elastic limit. beyond the columns and lap. According to the Codes contemplate that ductility will develop, code, you don't need to continue all bottom and energy absorption will take place to pre- bars. Only 25 percent go through, and the rest vent collapse. of them stop. But our office would carry them all through. We want to tie the building together as Ductility saves the building during intense much as possible to resist quake forces. ground motion, when some members thus deform beyond the yield limit. That is what we Also, under some conditions, we know the lim- call ductility. Our codes contemplate this abil- itations of our knowledge, and the variations in ity of a structure to be useful beyond the yield quality of materials. Since you don't know what limit. At critical peaks of ground motions the kind of earthquake will occur, we just designed steel in some members will begin to enter conservatively. Our structural cost was perhaps slightly into a rather long plateau of constant as much as 5 to 10 percent more, but what does "yield" stress, deflecting, but still stable, and the 5 or 10 percent represent? Structural cost is not collapsing. only 25 percent of total cost of a project. So 10 percent of 25 percent is only 2.5 percent, and But the stress in some other members will not that is money well spent. I believe engineers necessarily be at yield, due to strong influence should look upon the code as a minimum of material variability, residual stresses, detail- requirement, and in some cases go ing, workmanship, and different local assis- beyond this requirement. We did that. tance from the nonstructural elements upon the steel bents. So what saves the building is Here is a picture from the Mexico City earth- this-its concrete will crack, but the steel will quake. [Points to photo of collapsed building in elongate and go into the inelastic range-that's 1985 earthquake, which appeared in Civil Engi- ductility-and ductility will soften the energy, neering, January 1986.1 Look how that fell apart. absorb it, and then the earthquake will be over. Where's the tie there? If Degenkolb had

31 Chapter 3 Connections: The EERl Oral History Series

designed that building, it wouldn't have hap- Scott: You are talking about nonstructural pened that way-that's my opinion. You see such elements in old buildings? a sinall amount of reinforcing bars-meager. Pregnoff: Yes. Those old San Francisco When I see a picture like that, it appears to me buildings that you saw still standing in that that the building was not well tied together. 1906 postearthquake picture in the Freeman Otherwise it maybe would distort, but is not book, they're all here and still being used. going to collapse. They probably said, "Well, There is a difference between modern multi- you don't need the reinforcement there, story buildings now and multistory buildings in because it's in compression," so the reinforce- the past. ment didn't even go through. Multistory buildings in the past had nonstruc- Scott: And there was the combination of the tural partitions. Some of them were of tile, duration of that earthquake, the vibration went on some of plaster. Nowadays, buildings are built for a minute or more, and the long-period motion. without partitions. The client comes in afterwards and puts the partitions in. They are of Yes, know, admit the earth- Pregnoff: I I thin metal steel studs with gypsum boards quake's duration. But when you look at the attached to them. In the old days solid partitions photo, the concrete looks maybe poor, too. It reached from the floor to the floor above. Now- appears to me that not enough ductility was adays most of them do not go to the floor above. provided in those concrete buildings. When things elongate they begin to absorb energy. When an earthquake shakes the building, When a column yields, it means that less everything is working-except you and me, we energy is imparted to a building. Those details get scared-but everything is working and didn't provide ductility. Their code's pretty working to its utmost. Nonstructural partitions close to ours. They met code requirements, but may begin to crack, but will carry some load. did not meet the requirements of ductility. Even friction between cracks will carry some force, producing damping and absorbing Damping and Nonstructural energy. Steel alone will be like a perfect spring and may synchronize with the ground move- Resistance ments. Nonstructural partitions do not let the Pregnoff: Nowadays, they begin to use a steel structures respond ideally during vibra- concrete wall as a member which carries lateral tions. The old buildings were saved by the par- forces. In those days they didn't use it. It was ticipation of the nonstructural elements. just considered as a partition. Also a lot of hollow-tile partitions were used. When an earth- Scott: Henry Degenkolb emphasized to me quake occurs they will try to resist the forces, that the effects of nonstructural or nonbearing but eventually will crack and fail. But those are elements can be very important design consid- nonstructural elements, and all buildings have eration in practical earthquake engineering. them, and they help to save a building from Pregnoff: Yes. Those elements have to work. catastrophic events. They do the best they can and they resist

32 Michael V. Pregnoff Seismic Design Considerations Chapter 3

forces. Degenkolb felt that in every one of his do with such large dynamic forces? Let's divide buildings he would like to put some concrete the forces by four. We call it the ductility fac- walls, nonstructural, around stairwells, around tor. We divide by four, and get the forces the elevator. He likes to have those walls. [down] to about the same as the code forces. They're not computed to resist lateral forces, Steel resists everything, like 450 Sutter, in San but they give you extra damping for the build- Francisco, which Snyder designed. It is a tall ing, so the building doesn't act ideally, like a building, 30 stories. The outside walls are con- spring. The worst thing you could design is crete, [and that] helps produce damping. And something like an ideal machine, which, when the interior partitions are going to work, too. it's synchronized, gets into resonance with Still, the steel carries everything. The bare steel earth motion. carries the forces as though the concrete walls [The nonstructural elements] are the reason didn't exist. why those old pre- 1906 buildings are still being used now. They were damaged during Codes Provide Only the 1906 quake, and were also damaged by the fire. They were remodeled, and the buildings Minimum Requirements are still being used. Also they probably will not Pregnoff: I have seen the drawings of some behave badly in future earthquakes. They may engineers who just design their buildings so behave better than some of those recently built they comply with the code. They don't think complicated, irregular buildings. things over. The codes cannot take care of all When we shake the computer model of the conditions. The codes give only the minimum building, it responds to the earth vibrations like requirements, and good engineers would add an ideal elastic spring-the deflections magnify their own extra strength. They don't design and the elastic forces come out usually about just for the minimum. But instead of being four or more times greater than the design conservative by using judgment, nowadays an code forces. [Yet] observation shows that regu- engineer can become a businessman and build lar steel buildings don't collapse in an earth- up an office of up to 200 men. He can employ quake. Why? Well, the reason is-if you apply computer experts having doctor's degrees, and a force to a vibrating system, it will vibrate for- who are mathematically proficient. They use ever, until something stops it. Damping would the results of the computer with blind faith. stop it. If you take a spring and vibrate it, inter- They do not try to reevaluate the theoretical nal damping stops it. Buildings have internal computer results to see if they look reasonable. damping. Also the nonstructural walls are They assume that the computer gives the right going to try to take the forces and produce answer. The computer will give you the right some damping. answer, but only provided the input is right. So what do we do? We get forces [say] four You have to visualize the action. When I ana- times greater using dynamic elastic analysis. lyze existing buildings, I consider which col- But we have ductility. What are you going to umns first begin to yield, while the others are

33 Chapter 3 Connections: The EERI Oral History Series

not yielding. Then more force is put on and structural cost is only 20 to 25 percent of total some more columns begin to yield, but the fur- cost. It may cost up to 50 percent of the origi- ther group of columns may not yield, and then nal cost to repair the building. In addition, you the earthquake is over and the building doesn't lose the tenants, who have to move out. collapse. In the old days [ 19061 buildings were not irregular, they were simple. Scott: You are referring to having to go in afterwards and repair or retrofit a building after Limiting Deflection and Drift an earthquake, due to damage caused by exces- to Reduce Damage sive drift and deflection? Pregnoff: Yes, repair after an earthquake. I Pregnoff: Now, with all my experience, I believe-we both did, Bob Matheu and me- say we believe that any buildings designed by us that building code requirements are only the will deflect less than ones designed blindly by minimum requirements. The code cannot take the code. all conditions into account. Therefore when we Scott: So the buildings you designed should consider a building moving during an earth- survive an earthquake with much less damage? quake, we do not want one floor to move with respect to the other to such an extent that it Pregnoff: That is correct. In fact, the drift will crack all the partitions. Back in, say the limitation has been given [by the code] only for years 1930-1935 or so, many engineers didn't the last 25 years. Before that, the drift limita- even compute the deflection of the stories. tion was not in the code at all. The first codes In short, when we design a building, we design on earthquake design had no limitation as to so as to limit the deflection of one floor with drift. Now they give the limitation, but the lim- respect to the other. Do you know what that itation still is not small enough. means? That means that the stresses in the In 1930 the engineer H.V. Spurr, in his book members are very much less than those allowed Wind Bracing, called attention to proper rigid- by the code when one designs for strength ity of tall building^.^ He gave the criteria for only. That means that the structure we design deflections which will be tolerable to occu- is sort of over-designed with respect to the pants. In a New York hotel [let's say that] a man building code, because deflection criteria gov- on the upper floors begins to shave; then he erns the designs rather than the code strength looks at the bathtub and sees the water moving criteria. because the building is moving. He almost gets If I apply the lateral code forces to a building, I sick. He wants to move downstairs, or he would arrive at a certain size of a column and moves out of the building. And that's just from certain size of beam. But if we build that way, the motion caused by the wind. then the building will deflect too much and ruin the interior work in the building-that 4. Spurr, H.V., Wind Bracing: the Importance of Rigid- costs more money than my structural cost. The ily in High Towers. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1930.

34 Michael V. Pregnoff Seismic Design Considerations Chapter 3

In 1981 we checked a hotel in San Francisco code as providing only minimal requirements. that had been designed and approved by City To begin with, not everything in the code is Hall. The bank wanted some experts to check it right for every condition. So we always used for earthquake. They engaged a firm to do it, the code in our own way. We did our own and the firm engaged me to assist them as an requirements, established how much some por- expert. We analyzed that building using the aid tions of the building should move with respect of the computer and found the deflections were to other parts. Maybe the code says all it will too large. The deflection was as much as 1 inch move is 1 inch, but we say we don't want 1 inch per story, and it's 35 floors, so it can move a of movement, we want only one-quarter inch total of 3 S inches at the top. What really hurts of movement. the building is not just the total movement at the top, but the story deflections. Large deflec- Here in the Civil Engineering- article the author tions between stories will damage nonstruc- writes, "My guess is that a structure designed tural elements. They corrected the problem in with dynamic analysis based on the expected the hotel building by strengthening the beams levels of ground motion, and a comfortable and columns. safety factor for the ductility levels, would cost between SO percent and 100 percent more than Designing Above the Code: a structure designed under existing building Structural Costs Not Significant codes. But, since the structure costs only about 20 percent of total building project cost, the Pregnoff: Engineers have to rely upon their additional cost would only be between 10 and past experiences and judgment, which dictate 20 percent." the necessity to be conservative. The engineers should remember that the code requirements If you increase the structural costs of a building are minimal. They have the right to increase by 20 percent, it doesn't mean anything- their design-no one is going to sue them for nobody would know the difference. Another that. In any case, most of the time when you do thing, too. When you make an increase of 20 that, the structural cost of a building increases. percent, and you make the details all alike- The structural cost could be 20 percent higher. repetition-the job gets cheaper. With the But this is only a small increase, because the "economical" way, things become smaller, hard structural cost is only 25 percent of the total to connect, more complicated. If you make it cost of a project, so an engineer who designs bigger, it is easier to connect. It is the cost of for twice the code forces is not too extravagant. the workmanship which counts-material weight doesn't count as much. Of course it A consulting engineer in Vancouver published increases the cost-steel costs so much-but an article in Civil Engineering, American Soci- workmanship costs three times as much as steel. ety of Civil Engineers, issue ofJanuary 1986, in which he writes, "My guess is that the codes are I am very much original that way. My partner inadequate." Well, he says it now. But we too. I'm telling you, we, as engineers, take [Pregnoff and Matheu] always thought of the responsibility. Life is in your hands-I always

35 Chapter 3 Connections: The EERl Oral History Series

feel that way. Therefore, I should be conservative. And I believe in conservatism. I believe that in some cases minimum requirements are not enough.

36 Chapter 4 Design Simplicity and Building Behavior

“Simplicity is importan t-a building should be simple in plan. ri

Building Makeup Determines Behavior Pregnoff: The architect really decides the fate of the behavior of the building, not the engineers. We engineers have to adapt to situations and try to do the best we can. The makeup of a building is the most important thing in its behavior during a quake. Simplicity is important-a building should be simple in plan. Any building that is irregular in plan cannot behave properly during an earthquake. L-shaped buildings are absolutely not good. At the present time, however, I personally think that, instead of avoiding irregular buildings, some engineers design them because it suits the ideas of architects, and because the engineers have the assistance of the computer. They think that with the computer they can analyze anything. So they are relying on computer analysis to build the most complicated buildings, which will not behave properly. I designed a lot of buildings in the old days. When we had an L-shaped building, we separated it at the juncture of the L-it was separated into two buildings, acting separately. In effect we then had two rectangular-shaped buildings. In 1925 [when

37 Chapter 4 Connections: The EERl Oral History Series

there was no earthquake code in San Francisco] to divide long buildings into shorter sections by Chris Snyder designed the multistory PG&E using seismic joints. Building on Market Street and Beale. Then, in 1946, PG&E wanted to make an addition to the Scott: Because of the separation, each com- building. The addition would have created an ponent of an irregular building behaves as a L-shaped building in plan, so I told the archi- separate, simple structure? tect to separate the parts of the L by 6 inches. Pregnoff: Yes, In my practice, we separated I had a case recently when the client of an engi- them. We used sliding joints-the idea being to neer friend of mine-who worked for me years make the building simple in plan. In designing, ago-wanted to buy a recently built shopping if you see something like an L-shaped or irreg- center. The client wanted to buy it, but asked ular building, you have to separate it into regu- whether it was good for earthquakes. My engi- lar shapes. neer friend asked me to help him in the evaluation. The project consists of three one-story Simplicity and Repetition buildings, each about 550 feet long. In general, the long wall consists of very small steel tube Pregnoff: If a building is very simple, it acts columns with glass windows in between. The simply. But if it is complicated, you don't know other long wall is a concrete block wall without how it's going to act. So be conservative, make openings. When earthquakes shake the build- things alike. All members are alike. But now ing, the stiff block wall will resist practically all suppose that this member were a little longer, lateral forces and the building will torque. Dur- and that member still longer, on account of ing an earthquake the earth movements will not variations in columns? They'd have to manu- be equal along the excessive length of the build- facture them differently. Mine are all the same. ing, and there will be a tendency to damage. It means repetition. The shopping center in general complies with For example, in a concrete building, say I make the requirements of the code, which does not all the beams 30 inches deep, but they would limit the length or the presence of torque. make adjacent beams qn the shorter span 16 Most of the space is already leased and the inches deep. That's a mistake. They should be stores are doing business. We have to be careful 30 inches, all of them 30 inches. When the about condemning the building, which is contractor builds the forms and shores, they legally safe, because it was approved by the city. should be all alike, to save the labor. In my case We reported that the building was an irregular all steel bars are continuous because the beams type of building. The engineer cannot make a are of the same depth. They produce a good highly irregular building behave well in an continuous tie. This ties it together. The earthquake. Again, it is desirable to separate details are very important. The job should be such a building into simple portions by using detailed for the earthquake forces. [Then] construction seismic joints. Also, to minimize when the contractor prepares the same detail the damage during earthquakes it is advisable for the whole floor it is a matter of repetition.

38 Michael V. Pregnoff Design Simplicity and Building Behavior Chapter 4

This uses more concrete, but it's cheaper in Pregnoff: That's right. Very long buildings labor, and is a better job-has continuity. shouldn't be allowed. During the El Centro There are two things in engineering: one thing quake, as I recall, during 1/4 second, the earth is computation, and the other is creating detail. moved 6 inches back and forth at the location The detail may not necessarily comply with the of the instrument. I'm positive that during an requirements of computations. Besides strength, earthquake, all points along the length of a the details should also be considered. As far as building will not move the same 6 inches, and the practical end is concerned, sometimes a they may try to tear the building apart. shallower concrete beam should be made The longest building allowed in Russia is 70 deeper, when the beam next to it is deep. Forms meters. Seventy meters is about 230 feet. The and shores should be repetitive. Thus, you save long buildings in the shopping center I was labor if the adjacent beams are of the same talking about earlier were 550 feet. The design depth. The total labor cost in a building is four met code requirements, but the code doesn't times greater than the total cost of material. It take all conditions into account. The code gives used to be,two times, but now it's four times. you minimum requirements. And they proba- Scott: So you could say that labor costs are bly analyzed for torque and everything. City really the bulk of the building costs? halls don't have enough personnel to check our buildings. It takes six or eight months to design Pregnoff: Oh, sure, absolutely. Carpenters' a building, and they have only a couple of labor costs are $40 an hour. That includes weeks to check it. How could they check every- profit to the contractor. thing? They just have to trust the designer. Russian Seismic Code Schematic Simplification Pregnoff: On its first page, the Russian seismic code states that all buildings should be reg- Pregnoff: You have to visualize your struc- ular, with a regular disposition of masses and ture. I imagine my building in my mind. In a stiffnesses. Of course, that is a country with book called Structures, Luigi Nervi, a famous one boss-and they want to make buildings as Italian engineer who designed beautiful struc- simple as possible, as economical as possible. tures, talks about college education and what They don't want to build a monument for education should be like. He thinks education themselves. Some architects here design very should go beyond the mathematics, and should good-loolung buildings, but they are not suit- be something else.' able for earthquake localities. What you build Nervi is an engineer and architect at the same in New York, you should not build in San Fran- time. Let's see what Nervi says [reads from cisco. Architects should adapt themselves to Nervi book]: "The formative stage of a design, our more severe conditions on buildings. during which its main characteristics are

Scott: The basic design of the building should 5. Nervi, Luigi, Stmctures. F.W. Dodge, New take this area's seismicity into consideration? York, 1956.

39 Chapter 4 Connections: The EERl Oral History Series

defined and its qualities and faults are deter- Pregnoff: Small. When an earthquake mined once and for all, cannot make use of occurs, the other columns will take the lateral structural theory, and must resort to intuition load, and the one in the corner just rides, tak- and schematic simplification." So he says use ing insignificant force, because it is small and schematic simplification when you plan a build- very flexible. It adjusts itself without being ing. He built models too. Sometimes computa- overstressed, while the other columns are tion is not reliable, and so he built a model. resisting the earthquake. Nervi's design [process] is not much different Scott: The columns that are not at the cor- from ours. In the process of design, when you start a building you conceive the detail first. ners do the resisting? You don't calculate the detail. Calculation does Pregnoff: Yes. And yet some engineers will not give you size. You determine size by trial, make computations and determine on a large, and calculation checks your size choice. In the rather expensive column which may fail, due to preliminary design stages, Bob Matheu and I inefficiency or inability of the shape to resist established the sizes, using our intuition, our biaxial bending. experience. Then we would give the job to our engineer to carry out the design. Scott: By choosing the larger corner column they made it more vulnerable because it gets A Practical Example: more force than any of the others? Corner Columns Pregnoff: Sure, [it is more vulnerable] Pregnoff: With a lot of things, you can intu- because the designer made it large and stiff. itively simplify the behavior of the structure. You need to intuitively simplify structural Scott: Could you give another practical behavior. It is nice, too, for the research people example? who may read our discussion to realize that besides the theoretical computation, there is Pregnoff: Corner columns. During an earth- such a thing as schematic simplification. You quake, the corner column in a building is sub- can make a job simple if the architect goes jected to complicated biaxial bending due to along with you. If he has trust, confidence that two beams framing into it at right angles to each other. It also suffers badly due to overall you are right, he may agree with you. torque of the building, which is induced by the rotational movements of the ground. Column A Very Irregular Building shapes are not very effective for biaxial bend- Pregnoff: There is one multistory building ing. Theoretically, the corner column would in San Francisco that is somewhat round in come out rather large in size. Do you know plan, and the architect wanted an atrium-a lot what we do? We make it small in dimension; of light-so cut out a portion of it in the lower just strong enough to carry vertical loads. stories. The building is like a cylinder, with a Scott: You make the corner column small? portion of it cut off.

40 Michael V. Pregnoff Design Simplicity and Building Behavior Chapter 4

Scott: The cutoff cylinder shape makes a only about 20 members attend. I attend every very irregular building? meeting, although maybe have missed one or Pregnoff: That's right. They built it that two. We discuss all kinds of problems. Some- way. Computer analysis gave them an answer. times we do not agree. So we had a lot of north Without the computer, it would be very diffi- and south discussions. We have to compromise. cult to analyze. Present code regulations-the Scott: These compromises are made in the Blue Book provisions-do not apply to the course of getting something finally adopted in irregular building. the SEAOC Blue Book?6 Scott: When you say the code forces do not Pregnoff: That's right. We [the SEAOC apply, you basically mean that the designers Seismology Committee in 19861 are now revis- have to be even more careful with buildings ing the present Blue Book, which is the Struc- like that? tural Engineers Association's rules to design Pregnoff: Yes. When you make a dynamic for earthquakes. The new Blue Book will come analysis, for either a regular or irregular build- out maybe in a couple of years. We've been ing, you use the ground movements, like of the working on it four years already. It's more El Centro quake. We have measurements of severe, but not much. The Blue Book rules the El Centro quake-how it shook the earth. apply to regular buildings. The present Blue You make a mathematical model of the build- Book says that for buildings with irregular dis- ing, and using the computer, apply the ground tribution of masses and stiffnesses, the forces movements to its bottom. The computer solves given in the Blue Book do not apply. the problems and gives the response forces. But we allow such irregular buildings provided they're designed by dynamic analysis. Such Irregular Buildings and the irregular buildings should be designed with Current SEAOC Blue Book consideration for the response of the buildings to earth movements. Our committee has a Pregnoff: At present I'm working on the notion that if a building is irregular, we should Seismology Committee of the Structural Engi- tell them [designers] how to overcome the neers Association of Northern California problem. I am arguing that that's not right. (SEAONC). The Structural Engineers Associ- ation of California (SEAOC) has a Seismology In my opinion, the code should not legalize the Committee in all its sections: Northern irregular buildings by giving the rules, without California, Southern California, Central Cali- limitations on irregularity. Thus I believe that fornia, and San Diego. All four of these com- the code should not give the method, not tell mittees are combined into one committee of the designer how to do it [build an irregular SEAOC, which reviews the work of the four building]. We have practically finished the new associations. 6. The "Blue Book" is the name by which The Seismology Committee is divided into SEAOC's Lateral Force Requirements and subcommittees. We have 135 members, but Commentaq is generally known.

41 Chapter 4 Connections: The EERI Oral History Series

draft of the Blue Book, but I do not like it Don't Build Complicated Buildings because, instead of discouraging irregular Pregnoff: I say, if a building is too compli- buildings, it gives solutions, which designers cated, don't build it at all. They shouldn't allow can put in the computer and then build a build- irregular buildings, complicated buildings; they ing. Also the new draft does not limit the irreg- should make them regular. I've seen a picture ularity. If the designer does not fully of a Los Angeles building, a 2 5-story tower understand the problem, we should not give with a large two-story garage structure con- him the solutions. A not-knowledgeable man nected to its side. In an earthquake the garage can apply those rules without knowing what he structure will try to resist part of the motion of is doing. He should possess the knowledge, be the tower, with resulting complicated torsion. able to think things over, and use his judgment If I were the designer I would have separated and comprehension. the two-story garage, and let the tall tower move independently on its own. You could put Scott: You mean that before even tackling an in doors and use a steel sliding plate in the floor irregular building, the design engineer needs at the doors. first to have already developed some real earth- Russian earthquake codes are different from quake-engineering competence? That means ours. They give you a lot of details. But one is being fully capable of thinking through the not allowed to design an irregular building ways in which the building being designed will there, unless one has a record of the behavior be affected by earth movements, and how the of a similar building in past earthquakes. They building and its various component parts will want symmetrical buildings-they don't want respond, hang together, and resist failure, fancy buildings. despite shaking? Scott: So the Russian requirement for sim- Pregnoff: That's right. As an engineer you plicity is written into their code? have to remember that life is in your hands, so Pregnoff: It says something like: "The build- you have a responsibility. You cannot simply ing shall have equal distribution of masses, say, "I complied with the code." As I empha- symmetrical arrangements of resisting ele- sized before, the code provides only minimum ments.. .insofar as possible." That's the goal. requirements. Our proposed Blue Book edition says in effect: The New DraJZ3stSays: "In a simple building, apply the code forces and "Use Dynamic Analysis" methods. However, if the building is irregular, Pregnoff: Our proposed new Blue Book does use dynamic analysis." As if dynamic analysis not suggest that buildings be made as simple as solves the problem. Dynamic analysis may not possible. It just says, "If you have a complicated solve the problems of a very complicated build- building, use dynamic analysis," and also gives ing. But our proposed Blue Book "legalizes" methods of doing the dynamic analysis. There the highly irregular buildings. are several ways of doing dynamic analysis, and

42 Michael V. Pregnoff Design Simplicity and Building Behavior Chapter 4

there's a lot of uncertainty involved. In work and produce a good building. Now in the dynamic analysis you have to model the build- proposed Blue Book, we won't discourage ing. But the model cannot possibly really rep- complicated, irregular buildings. We state that resent the building. It only represents a bunch if you have an irregular building, you use of columns and beams having areas and other dynamic analysis, as though the dynamic analy- technical properties. But I also want to know sis will represent the actual behavior of the how the members are connected and how they highly irregular building. interact within a joint. A joint distorts. They try, by computer, to imitate the action of a Independent Review joint. In the future, however, I think the computer probably will supersede human thinking. Pregnoff: I just read in the civil engineering They won't be doing things my way-they'll be magazine, published by the American Society doing it by the computer. of Civil Engineers, that some firms, at the start of the design of a building, ask another firm or Difimlties of Applying Dynamic Analysis senior engineers [older engineers], to see if they are on the right track. The tendency now Pregnoff: It's very hard to judge irregular is to have a second opinion. I see nothing buildings, but we allow them provided they're wrong about that. I thought the new version of designed by dynamic analysis. In fact, we have the Blue Book was going to have a provision a Blue Book chapter on dynamic analysis. that with a very irregular building the designers There's a dynamic analysis which analyzes a should have a group of other engineers to look building beyond elastic limits. Also we tell it over. But I think that provision was killed. them how to do dynamic analysis. Instead, I believe that the code should specify the forces, Evaluate Analysis Using Common Sense but not give the method, not tell the designer how to do it. A not-knowledgeable man can Pregnoff: [But] as I say, the computer alone apply those rules without knowing what he is shouldn't give you the answer. You should doing. I believe that the code should not give reevaluate it and see if it is reasonable. For the solution to a problem. This is my opinion. instance, if you're not so sure about soil charac- The rules of structural dynamics are very com- teristics, you give the computer three sets of plicated. First, at the start, you don't know characteristics. It will give you the results for all what kind of quake will occur. Second, you three. The engineers will then use their own don't know the building, yet. When you create judgment as to which set of characteristics to the building, you visualize its distortion accord- select. As Luigi Nervi' said, any mathematical ing to some simple rules, rules in the code. In solution should not be trusted without intuitive some cases you make it a little bit more than reevaluation. The solution may be right but the the code, but you make the thing simple. input was wrong. I would use the computer all

If you educate the architect, explain it to him, if 7. Nervi, Luigi, Stmctwes, F.W. Dodge, New he understands why it is so, you get good team- York, 1956.

43 Chapter 4 Connections: The EERl Oral History Series

the time, but I would have somebody to review bracing-to resist earthquakes. They gave our the computer solution when it comes in. Check office the job of making detail drawings, and it out by common sense, that's all. they gave us the forces of computer analysis.

Any mathematical analysis, whether done by There are two diagonals, and when lateral computer or by hand, should be reevaluated force is applied, half of the force is carried by from a practical standpoint. To some computer one member of the X by compression and half men, however, a building is a bunch of lines by the other X member in tension. The forces that resist forces. One line has certain values of on each member should be alike, except that stiffness, and strength, another one has differ- one is compression and the other one is ten- ent values. And they put them into the com- sion. Instead, however, the forces given by the puter and the computer program determines computer differed appreciably, so I called the how the forces are distributed and gives an computer man. He told me that the difference answer, gives them magnitudes of forces, etc. in forces was due to different modes of vibra- Those results should be evaluated. You need to tion. But I told him that instantaneously at spe- apply judgment in order to evaluate the answer cific times in each mode, the forces should be provided by the computations, and to decide if alike-should be exactly equal-except in the forces indicated are right. That's what reverse. Later the computer man called me up Luigi Nervi said, the Italian engineer whom I to say they had made a mistake. So they cor- mentioned before. In his book, Structures, rected it. Nervi said that every mathematical solution should be reevaluated from your own stand- Here is another example involving the multi- point to see if it is reasonable. If an answer story Kaiser Hospital Building on Geary doesn't look reasonable, something may be Street, in San Francisco. We were making a wrong; do something else, to see if there is an report on its ability to resist earthquake forces. error somewhere. It has a thin concrete wall, only 6 inches thick, and about 50 feet long, just a yard wall, Thus, in my own practice, our computer men attached to the building. Our computer expert might do an analysis and give me the answers made an analysis and said the building was to review. Maybe I would look at the answers and notice, say, that the shear forces get larger overstressed in the bottom story, because the towards the top of the building instead of get- wall was overstressed. My partner said, "This is ting less-so somewhere there is a mistake. I just a yard wall. You could separate it and throw would start to study it to find the error. You it out of the analysis. What do you put it for?" have to look over everything. He took it out of the analysis, and the building was okay. Here is an example from about 1976. One of my engineer friends had gotten a $200 million Scott: But in the original computer analysis job involving retrofit of a four-story building. the yard wall had been treated as if it were an They chose structural X-bracing-diagonal integral part of the basic structure?

44 Michael V. Pregnoff Design Simplicity and Building Behavior Chapter 4

Pregnoff: That's right-he treated it as The structural engineer should be though it were a long, stiff structural element. capable of evaluating the limitations of Quite often a building will have a wall situated the computer output, based on the in such a manner that it is overstressed. Then mathematic model of the structure. In you know what you do? You go ahead and build fact, he should be intimately con- it, but you separate it, so the forces won't go nected with the conception of the into the wall. Make a slight sliding joint. Or model. The structure includes the lay- you say, let it crack. It will crack, but nothing ers of the soil upon which the struc- will fall down because the other elements are ture rests. resisting the forces. To the uninitiated young engineer, the more complex the theoretical model, Pregnoff Memo: The Engineer and the more it represents the truth. This the Computer Age fact gives him blind faith in the results and relieves him from responsibility of Pregnoff: Now I will read some of my thinking things over. thoughts to you [reading from his memoran- Today the young engineer may be durn8]. In the memo I'm asking: rated best if he knows how to set up Can the buildings be designed by computer programs. He may also be application of the mathematical for- rated high if he has a Masters or Ph.D. mulas of structural mechanics? Or degree. instead, should they be designed by intuitive evaluation of the theoretical Scoff: That expresses your philosophy on results, taking into account the wide computer use in design? variation between the theoretical Pregnoff: Yes. That is my philosophy. assumptions and the actual properties of materials-concrete, steel, wood, Scott: When you wrote this memo in 1975, soil? was it done mainly to put your basic philosophy in writing? Structural engineers should know that the computer model of the structure is Pregnoff: I did it for the following reason: only an approximate picture of its The Structural Engineers Association of Cali- fornia has a meeting every year, and there was behavior. The engineer should rely to be a meeting on "The Future and the upon his intuitive knowledge, appre- Present of Engineering." I gave this to the pro- hension, and experiences to visualize gram committee to be used as one of the topics. the actual behavior of the structure. Scott: How did they respond? I presume this 8. Unpublished memorandum by Michael V. Preg- noff, "The Engineer in the Computer Age," No- was all done in preparation for the annual vember 13,1975. meeting around 1975 or 1976?

45 Chapter 4 Connections: The EERl Oral History Series

Pregnoff: Well, I gave it to the [program] forth and vertically. Then the computer will chairman, who worked for a big organization. solve the problem and even give drawings in He said, "Oh, Mike, I have a lot of trouble with full size of several styles of joints. The com- this computer business." So he wasn't so enthu- puter will give everything. But it is a human siastic about putting my topic on the program. being who will make the decision, for example, that [in the interest of uniformity] a short beam The Future: Computer Used in a concrete building should be made the same Like Handbook size as the adjacent long beam. You ask the computer to give several solutions Scott: What do you think of the future use for a given condition. That is, a few beam sizes of computers for irregular buildings, as more with different reinforcement, etc. You pick the capable computers are developed, along with one you want. The program is such that you the far more sophisticated hnds of analysis that ask for ten beams, ten sizes with different rein- will be possible when such computers are more forcement for the same condition. You pick out plentiful? Especially, do you think they may the one you want. Of course it costs money to then be able to handle the problems of very analyze ten different beams, so you ask for irregular buildings more effectively? maybe two or three beams. You ask for the Pregnoff: Probably. But the practical aspects desirable depth, it will give you that depth. will still be controlled by the engineers. In gen- Then you ask for another one that is 2 inches eral I think that in the future they will use the shallower, it will give you that with all the rein- computer like a handbook, like a cookbook. In forcement. FORTRAN language they have a sheet with 80 Scott: So even then the engineer will still be columns. You enter into it the dimensions of a in charge of the practical end of design? building, number of frames, stories and you also input the assumed earth motions back and Pregnoff: That's right.

46 Chapter 5 Seismic Code Development

"The code gives you forces and some details. When designers follow it blindly, it is okay for an average building-better than no code. I1

Early Days Scott: I'd like your comments on the development of what is sometimes referred to as the "California practice." I'd also like you to talk about the Separate 66 philosophy and the development of the Blue Book that came along a little after that; the early attempts to establish some standards of practice with special respect to earthquake resistance. Pregnoff: In 1930 the structural engineers organized an association consisting mostly of engineers in private practice. Among the really active ones were [Henry] Brunnier, [L.H.] Nishkian, [E.L.] Cope, W.B.] Leonard. Chew was not in here, because he was a loner. But Gus Saph, was, yes. Those fellows formed the association. Back in 1923 and afterward, the engineers had begun to think about earthquakes. I remember in Snyder's office, Hall-who was my boss at the time-and Snyder talked a little bit about earthquakes. But the men like Chew, they practiced it. While we were designing the Opera House for Snyder-R.S. Chew was running it with me, so we put something into it for earth-

47 Chapter 5 Connections: The EERl Oral History Series

quake forces. So there were a few of us, a few third and fourth levels down-use 6 percent of engineers who designed for earthquakes-Saph DL plus LL; at the fifth and sixth levels, use 4 probably, [Austin] Earl, and Cope. percent of DL plus LL. At all levels below the sixth one down-counting from and including 1939 Chamber of Commerce Code: the roof-use 2 percent of DL plus LL. Designing for Lateral Forces The lateral force resistance at each level would Pregnoff: Back in 1930 in California, partly be equal to a percent of the dead load plus live as a response to the Santa Barbara earthquake load adjacent to those levels. Suppose you have of 1925, various committees of more than 100 three floors and a roof [four supported levels], technical men worked for several years and then at each level-counting from top of build- produced the Building Code for CalifO.~nia,~ ing [the roof counted as the first level]-the nearly 500 pages in length. The State Chamber lateral force as a percentage of DL plus LL, is 8 of Commerce appropriated money somehow, percent, 8 percent, 6 percent, and 6 percent. If from somewhere, and in 1930 a committee of you have nine levels and a roof you use the fol- engineers was formed. Among them were Sny- lowing percentages: 8, 8, 6,6,4,4, and then 2 der and Nishkian. I how, because I was help- percent of DL plus LL lateral force below the ing Snyder. It's a code that covers flat slab sixth level, counting from the top. Now in 1987 construction, steel construction, concrete con- we are doing similarly, except with larger per- struction-everything. It was published in 1939 centages of dead load only. So their way to by the California State Chamber of Com- resist earthquake forces was not bad. There is a merce. They produced a very good code. I have dynamic effect, and this is a very good way to a copy of it. compute it. [See Appendix, Excerpts: Building Scott: Is that 1939 code still readily avail- Codefor California, 1939.1 able, or is it a collector's item? Pregnoff: It's not available at all, and anyway Scott: Although you called that old 1939 it was never adopted as a code. It didn't go into code's method kmd of peculiar, you also are effect. saying that at least this aspect of it had considerable merit? The 1939 code proposed a peculiar way to design buildings for lateral forces due to earth- Pregnoff: Yes. If you have a 2-story building, quakes. What they did is this. Say you are you use a lateral force [top two levels]. They designing a tall building. At the top two lev- put the quake force design in the appendix in els-the roof and the next level down-you use that of 8 percent of DL plus LL at the roof and a lateral force of 8 percent of dead load (DL) second floor code. Any community had a plus live load (LL). At the next levels-the choice of designing for quake if they wished to do so at that time. That code was published in 9. California State Chamber of Commerce, Building Code for California, ed. Edwin 1939, but as I said, it was never adopted [by any Bergstrom, 1939. jurisdiction].

48 Michael V. Pregnoff Seismic Code Development Chapter 5

Scott: What effect did the Chamber of Separate 66 Commerce code have? Did it have influence, Pregnoff: A short time ago, you asked about even though it was not formally adopted? "California practice."

Field Act and Following Scott: Yes, Henry Degenkolb emphasized to Pregnoff: I'll tell you what influence it had. me the importance of California practice in After the 193 3 Long Beach earthquake earthquake engineering. occurred, the state was empowered to check Pregnoff: When Degenkolb talks about public school buildings. After that, you California practice, he means that California couldn't build a public school without approval engineers were more conscious of the quake by the State Division of Architecture. The forces. In 195 I the Joint Committee of the Division of Architecture put out a little book, ASCE and the Structural Engineers Associa- called Appendix A. Engineers were given tion of Northern California published a paper Appendix A [Pregnoff pulls out a copy]. in the Proceedings of ASCE, "Lateral Forces of Earthquake and Wind," known as Separnte 66. Scott: [Reading.] Regulation No. 5, "Relating 1959 to the Safety of Design and Construction of Then in the Structural Engineers Associ- ation of California published "Recommended Public School Buildings in California." This Lateral Force Requirements," known as the copy says revised 1937, and the first edition of Blue Book. The Blue Book was based on the Appendix A was probably done shortly after principles of Separate 66. 1933. Pregnoff: Yes, maybe the original was in 1933 Critics of Separate 66 or shortly after. When the 193 3 Long Beach earthquake occurred, it took them a while to Pregnoff: Anyway, the Structural Engineers organize. I don't know when it first canie out. I Association wrote what is called Separate 66, understand that some rules out of those Cham- published by the American Society of Civil ber of Commerce committee studies [for the Engineers. Some professors-southern Cali- code published in 19391 were put into Appendix fornia professors like R.R. Martel criticized it. A. It is a pretty good little document. Appendix George Housner criticized it and wrote quite a A was revised several times. It is now called Title discussion. Also some Japanese criticized it. 24. Those were pretty good little rules, very The critics thought maybe it was oversimpli- simple, not like the Uniform Building Code, fied, or something like that. But nobody paid which is now a little too complicated. much attention to them.

Scott: So the content of the first version of The critics said a lot of things were wrong in it. Appendix A for the Field Act was the principal But in my opinion it was quite an advancement. effect of that code-drafting effort sponsored by Separate 66 analyzes a single degree of freedom the Chamber of Commerce? element. Pregnoff: Yes. Scott: Movement in one direction?

49 Chapter 5 Connections: The EERl Oral History Series

Pregnoff: Yes, a single degree of freedom. A Pregnoff: In the past they've adopted it fully. structure responds to a quake in a certain way. They just copied it. But now lately, a new ver- For the slow movement it responds slowly. For sion of the Blue Book is being worked on. I am fast movement it responds sharply. The stiff a member of the committee. I don't know, building with a small natural period, like 0.2 of maybe in a couple years it will be put out. It has a second, will respond with a lateral force of 9 more details in it, and is more advanced. South, or 10 percent of its weight. north and central and San Diego engineers are worhng together. We argued a lot. It will be The flexible building with a long period of say more conservative and more detailed, particu- 2 seconds will respond with a lateral force of larly on steel. only 4 percent of its weight. So in Separate 66 the force is a function of the period, while the Scott Will it be basically a better code? old codes had it as a function of the number of Pregnoff: I don't think so. You know, the stories. That was a key difference. They gave earthquake is so uncertain. the formula for the lateral force as a function of the natural period of a building. Frank Ulrich It Depends on the Engineer of the US. Coast and Geodetic Survey measured the periods of a lot of buildings in San Scott: Do you mean the code is too Francisco and Los Angeles. They plotted a conservative? bunch of dots for periods of buildings with var- Pregnoff: I don't know what's better. I say ious ratios of height to width. From the average that with a building designed now, using the curve they obtained the formula for the lateral code, it depends on the engineer who designs force as a function of the natural [fundamental] it, not on the code. I say buildings designed by period of a building. That's in Separate 66. Brunnier or Degenkolb are better than build- Separate 66 is the first approach that is more or ings designed by some other engineers. No less advanced. That's where we started it, question about it. Because it isn't just that you in California. follow the code, it is the details that you provide. The code doesn't give you all the details. Blue Book and the UBC Engineering Still an Art Scott: First Separate 66, and then the Blue Book. Scott: So even with improved codes and more advanced codes over the years, the code is Pregnoff: Yes. The Blue Book is more still a "cookbook" approach, I guess. advanced. I think it is really better than any other code. I don't know what is more logical. I Pregnoff: The code gives you forces and don't know what Japan has. some details. When designers follow it blindly, it is okay for an average building-better than Scott: To what extent has the Uniform Build- no code. But for a large, complicated building, ing Code adopted what is in the Blue Book? I would say Degenkolb's building would be

50 Michael V. Pregnoff Seismic Code Development Chapter 5

better than one by some other engineers, who call it? I say he is a real star. In 1961 he wrote a are not experienced engineers. Yet they use the book together with Newmark, and Corning- same code. Design of Multistoy Reinforced Concrete Buildings for Earthquake Motions-a beautiful book.12 He Scott So the result still depends very much wrote a paper entitled, "Structural Dynamics in on the engineer? Earthquake Resistant Design," in the ASCE Pregnoff: Always. That is the key factor. If It's a masterpiece, and he got an you read the commentary in our Blue Book, it award [the Moisseiff Award] for that. says that a lot of things depend on the engineer. And in books written by very fine professors, I didn't get any awards. The only award I got they always mention that this is still kind of an was from Vice-Admiral Moreell, U. S. Navy, a meritorious civilian service award for doing a art. Newmark and Rosenbluethl' wrote a book lot of Navy construction work during the war. on earthquake design, and Ray Clough and Joe I designed a lot of Navy buildings for the 12th Penzien" wrote a book too. In their introduction Newmark and Rosenblueth say, "We face Naval district, and they were very well satisfied. uncertainty because it is our task to design a I worked on various technical committees, and structure about whose properties we know also, when I was President of the Structural little, to resist future earthquakes, about whose Engineers Association of Northern California, characteristics we know even less." I had to conduct monthly meetings. They liked the way I talked-often I would talk on human John Blume topics, and I was humorous. But I do not like to advertise myself. Scott I would like to ask about your view of John Blume and his contributions to earth- Our office never solicited; jobs came to us from quake engineering. I am asking particularly big architects, from mouth to mouth. I devel- since you yourself are known among the prac- oped my method of analysis of tall frames, but I ticing engineers as being especially good at the didn't publish it. People in Australia have it, use of math in engineering. I also know that and some friends of mine who worked for me early on John Blume probably did more mathe- are using it. A lot of people are using it, but I matically-oriented work and computer analysis did not want to publish because it's approxi- than just about any other practicing engineer in mate, maybe within 20 percent of real earth- California. quake forces. You have to know how to use it. Pregnoff: Blume and I are different. I'm not 12. Blume, John A., Nathan Newmark, and Leo H. demonstrative. Blume is a real, what would you Corning, Design of Multistoq Reinforced Concrete ~~~~ Buildingsfor Earthquake Motions. Portland Ce- 10. Newmark, Nathan M. and and Emilio Rosen- men t Association, 1961. blueth, Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering. 13. Blume, John A., "Structural Dynamics in Earth- Englewood Cliffs, N. J., Prentice-Hall, 1971. quake-Resistant Design," inJoumal of the Strmc- 11. Clough, Ray W. and Joseph Penzien, Dynamics tural Division. Proceeding of the American of Strmctures, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1st ed., Society of Civil Engineers, AXE, New York, 1975,2nd ed., 1993. NY, July 1958.

51 Chapter 5 Connections: The EERl Oral History Series

You play conservatively. But anyway the build- Wind Experiments; The Alexander ing [designed that way] won't fall down. Building Analysis Pregnoff: I remember when Blume was a yacobsen and the Building Model younger man, at one time they thought the Golden Gate Bridge was oscillating up and Pregnoff: Blunie was a young Stanford Uni- down too much during winds, similar to what versity student at the time when he got happened to the bridge in Tacoma. So John acquainted with Professor [Lydik] Jacobsen and made experiments about bridge shaking. He began to work closely with him. I think Jacob- hung a bunch of metal buckets, and with the sen engendered in Blume ideas about earth- buckets in the water tried to control the move- quake design. Blume and Jacobsen built a ment. He described those studies to me. So shalung table machine. Jacobsen made a model back then he was already trying, and he had an of a tall building that C.H. Snyder designed, a analytical mind. mathematical model, and they shook it, and Also Blume published a special analysis of the took movies. Alexander Building, in San Francisco on Sutter and Montgomery streets. It's isolated from Scott: If they took movies, then it must have other buildings, so he made a complete analysis been an actual physical model and not just a of it, wrote a theory on how nonstructural ele- mathematical model. ments are participating in it-a wonderful Pregnoff: It was a mathematical model, but piece of work. He did that maybe in the 1950s. was not only on paper. It had model members, IHe was that kind. You cannot compare me with inetal springs, which did not even look like him. As I said, he's a star-from standpoint of theoretical engineering. He was a consultant in building members. The model acted almost atomic energy planning. like a perfect machine because there was no damping, no plaster, and nothing helping to I don't know whether he'll give you interview resist lateral forces, only the a bare model. or not, but maybe he will. He likes to do things for people, and your work is for people, to l'hat experimental model represents the math- propagate knowledge. Oh, he is tops. ematical model on paper; the springs represent the computed properties of columns and Scott: You're tallung basically about his beams. They shook the model and measured its own contribution to the field, especially the distortions, which represented the behavior of literature? the nod el.'^ Pregnoff: His contribution to earthquake engineering. He's an earthquake man, and he 14. Blume, John A., and Harry L. Hesselmeyer, was on many committees. Similar to Degen- "The Reconciliation of the Computed and Ob- served Periods of Vibration of a Fifteen-Story kolb. He's a very modest, very nice man. Building,'' Engineer's Degree thesis. Stanford University, CA, 1934. He also sold his business. Maybe he was taken over, anyway the firm became URS. They

52 Michael V. Pregnoff Seismic Code Development Chapter 5

[Blume, URS] have done a lot of government if I wanted to do that job. They came to my jobs. [A few years ago] the state of California office and interviewed me. Also they inter- was going to reconstruct the Capitol in Sacra- viewed John Blume's office. I had no chance mento-they wanted to strengthen it for with respect to Blume-and Blume got the job, quakes. 1 got a letter from the State Architect which was quite a job. saying they'd like me to submit my experience,

Chapter 6 Observations on Prevailing Practice

"Simplicity of detail counts, not the amount

of material you put into it. "

Most Buildings Should Perform Well Scott: How do you feel about the prevailing engineering practice? Has it advanced over the years, especially in seismic design? Or is it still only a relatively few who practice seismic design?

Pregnoff: I sort of disagree with Degenkolb, to the extent that he says many modern buildings may not behave very well, maybe thousands of people will be killed.

Scott: He doesn't say that about all of them, but he says some buildings are not going to behave very well. Pregnoff: I think there will be fewer people killed, because in American building practice, I never see thousands of people lulled. I don't see that. It's only seen in Mexico. We didn't see that in Long Beach, we didn't see that in Alaska. We haven't seen it in the U.S. anywhere, so far. Even in San Francisco, in 1906, I think only 400 or so have been lulled. So really not so many people have been killed by quakes in the U.S. But maybe in the future, with tall buildings, maybe they will be. Also I somehow don't think the steel buildings will collapse, even if poorly designed.

55 Chapter 6 Connections: The EERl Oral History Series

On the Other Hand, Some Are Bad who said, 'I am not rich enough to buy cheap shoes.' You bought cheap shoes." Prepoff: James Stratta, structural engineer, designed several buildings for a corporation. But one building they wanted in a rush. One Details Were Inadequate contractor had the land already, near their Scott: It complied with the code, but the plant. He said "I'll build the building using niy design still was inadequate nevertheless. architect and iny engineer." so nahrrally Stratta didn't design it. l'hen when the contractor had Pregnoff: The details were inadequate. The practically completed tlie structural features, engineer's computation was correct, but the the corporation asked the insurance cornpany details were not correct. The code doesn't tell for tlie rates. After their inspection the insur- you how to connect things. So they said, "Let's ance people said, "We're not going to give you meet with the engineer who designed it." So we rates." "Why?" "The building is going to col- met the engineer. His brother was the architect. lapse during a quake." Fine drawings, but no details. They gave him all our three reports so he could get prepared. 'The corporation got in touch with Jiin Stratta, They asked him "What do asking, "What happened? Why don't you look you think?" He said, over that building for us?"Jiin said, "I want "Well, all these honorable experienced engi- sollie experts." So they got me and Degenkolb. neers, they're right, I have nothing to say. I We looked at the building. It met thc code complied with the code." So I asked him, "Did requirements. It had shear walls, but forces you scheme the job, did you give your scheme?" were not delivered to the shear walls. The 'The engineer said, "No." He said he had beam sat on the brackets. Instead of using ties, wanted to make a monolithic pour, but the contractor wanted precast members-that was the there were no ties. The wall was considered as taking force, hut there was no connection to contractor's scheme. "I had to follow his deliver the forces. So we said that the building scheme, I used his scheme." was not good. Each one of us made independent reports. Scott: So the contractor was calling the shots on that, not the engineer? We had a meeting with the corporation board of directors. Degenkolb talked, Jim Stratta Pregnoff: Rut the contractor still didn't vio- talked, and then I talked. Degenkolb said that late the code. The design was according to the there were iio ties, but then there's no require- code, everything was designed to code. Rut still ment in the code for the ties. He said that he what the contractor got was disconnected was not sure if they would win the case, if they pieces. Maybe somehow those pieces could act sued. Degenkolb told them that he was not sure together-God knows, pushing against each that they would win, because the engineer had other. But it's not good. So the corporation got designed according to the code. My own talk Jim Stratta to fix that building. He put braces was short-I said, "I've heard of an Englishman on the outside walls.

56 Michael V. Pregnoff Observations on Prevailing Practice Chapter 6

Poor Drawings Small Offices and Quality Pregnoff: They never learn. This happens all Engineering the time. About two years ago, a friend of mine Scott: It sounds to me as if some of the real brought to my office a print of drawings of a quality engineering is done in relatively small multimillion dollar structure he was inspecting offices. during construction. The details were poor. So poor that neither I nor Al Paquette the engi- Pregnoff: Because they put what we call heart neer, could interpret them. The contractor had and soul into it. They're interested themselves. great difficulty in building the job. In the past I They are putting themselves into it. They have blamed the architects for earthquake problems. responsibility. The owner of a small office in But lately, seeing some poor and incomplete reality is a poor businessman, but he loves engi- drawings, particularly issued by large 100- neering and he is an above-average engineer. to-200-men firms, I have begun to change my That's why he opened his office. He works him- mind. self, puts what we call his heart and soul into a job. He also works intimately with his employ- Scott: You don't think they're conscious of ees. He takes interest and knows every job. He doing a poor job? is aware of his responsibility. He tries to get a Pregnoff: think the principals don't realize I name for himself by doing a good job. what they're putting out.

Large Offices: Quality Control Maintaining Standards: Problems Checking Jobs Scott: There ought to be some quality con- Scott. So how do we maintain the standards trol somewhere. of engineering practice while things are going in the direction of the very, very large offices? Pregnoff: You imagine having 400 or even 200 men. One would have difficulties to find Pregnoff: I would check their jobs. Every responsible supervising personnel. In a large job should be checked thoroughly by the city, firm YOLI need at least five or six leaders in order the same way school jobs are being checked by to have a good quality control. Yet the govern- the state. ment and big institutions give the jobs to larger firms. Maybe it is debatable, but my opinion is Scott: They should be checked as based on observations. The firms with four or thoroughly as the checking done under the six employees do not get many jobs. Big institu- Field Act? tions, government institutions, they give jobs to Pregnoff: Yes, but it is not done now. So big firms. maybe cities should be forced to have compe- tent checking. If they haven't got their own checking ability, let them engage private engineers to check for them. That's the way to do it.

57 Chapter 6 Connections: The EERI Oral History Series

Scott: For that, I guess they would need rea- making them simple, repetitive, fast to build, is sonably well-qualified engineers, something also important. You can design small beams that more than just plan checkers who are only are difficult to connect, and then the labor costs responsible for saying whether a design com- more money. But some engineers, as for exam- plies with the code. ple some employed by big offices, may design As I understand it, you have checked quite a by computer, and the computer gives them the few buildings yourself. You've done quite a few smallest size as being economical, because of schools-you did Oakland schools, though that less weight. may have been some time back. What is it like, dealing with schools? "...NobodyThinks Things Over" Pregnoff: I had no trouble because I was Pregnoff: Some firms don't pay enough doing it properly. attention to the quality of their employees. In the old days, when the computer didn't exist, Simplicity and Repetition they hired somebody who had to be very experi- Pregnoff: Simplicity of detail counts, not the enced. He had to be reliable in every respect. amount of material you put into it. Repetition Now, the low-paid man can punch the com- counts. C.H. Snyder, the engineer for whom I puter program. He uses a cookbook, which is was working, had a big job for Washington written so that one mechanically enters the D.C., the Interstate Commerce Building. numbers without thinking. It is easier to get a Three engineers designed steel beams for dif- job done, but the job may not come out good ferent floors. C.H. Snyder said to me "Mike, from the practical standpoint in the field. The we have a lot of beams of the same size and dif- design may lack repetition, and simplicity in ferent weights. They are using 12"/2 8# and erection, etc. Back then, the designer had to 12"/32#. Instead of two sizes, use one size, 14"/ design. Nowadays, he uses the computer, 30#. Similarly with other sizes." I went over all punches in the program. In other words, for the plans, and we came out with fewer varieties them it's easier to put out a job now, but the job of beams. We saved money, because many is not as good. It is not as economical. beams were alike. That just shows you that economy is not necessarily economy in weight. Scott: Nobody sits down and thinks through It's in repetition. The contractor gets enthusi- the basic design. Is that principally what you're astic, if you simplify the sizes. Makes it simple saying is wrong? to buy, simple to order, simple to detail. Some- Pregnoff: Nobody thinks things over. Sees if times you can save as much as 5 percent to 10 everything looks reasonable. For example, slabs percent on a job. on ground-they make them 4 inches thick. I I'm pointing out that engineering is not just never make them less than 5 inches. A slab on complying with the code, not [just] complying ground cracks all the time. What is an extra with computations. There is something else- inch?

58 Michael V. Pregnoff Observations on Prevailing Practice Chapter 6

Scott: But that provides a better margin of Scott: Well, here we are at the end of an all- safety. I take you to mean it can make all the day interview. We have covered a lot of terri- difference in performance. tory in this long recording session. As I said Pregnoff: Using 5 inches instead of 4 inches before, it is quite unusual for an interviewer to adds 25 percent, makes it one-fourth greater in schedule an oral history session of this dura- thickness. Also it is hard to control the thickness tion, mostly because interviewees typically run with the erratic ground surface. With a 4-inch out of steam after an hour or two. But your slab, some of it will come out 3-112 inches. But energy supply obviously operates on a different with my 5-inch slabs, sometimes it comes out timetable. You're also a man of your word- 4-1/2 inches and sometimes 5-1/2 inches. you said you could outlast me, and you did.

Photographs

Michael V. Pregnoff, 1953 (photo: Moulin Studios)

61 Photos Connections: The EERl Oral History Series

Michael V. Pregnoff (right) and partner Robert Matheu, 1960 (photo: Russell Leake)

62 Appendix Seismic Design Excerpts from the California State Chamber of Commerce Building Code for California, 1939

Building Code for California ( 1939) Califoornia State Chamber of Commerce, Building Code$+ California, ed. Edwin Bergstrom, 1939.

Work on this code was begun in response to the 1925 Santa Barbara earthquake. The work was done by committees num- bering over one hundred members, representing state and local associations of architects, civil engineers and contractors. The intent was to develop a "Uniform Building Code-California Edition," and to publish the result by 1930. The effort went more slowly than anticipated, however, and the first actual use of the results came when the Field Act, which enacted minimum seismic standards for California public schools, was passed in 1933. The regulations developed to implement the Field Act relied heavily on the seismic design work that had been done for the State Chamber of Commerce project. The Chamber of Commerce also helped pass the 1933 Riley Act, which imposed a minimum seismic requirement that applied to structures generally, not just public schools. Consensus on further action proved elusive, however, and the code itselfwas not published until 1939. Even then, certain seismic design issues remained unresolved, so that there were two versions for lateral forces. The 1939 Chamber of Com- merce code was never adopted by any public agency, but the example set by its use in regulating the seismic design of public schools significantly influenced California's engineering practice for the better.

Michael V. Pregnoff Appendix

BUILDING CODE FOR CALIFORNIA

PREPARED FOR THE CALIFORNIA STATE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

BY COMMITTEES REPRESENTING

NORTHERNCALIFORNIA CHAPTER, THEAMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAPTER, THE AMERICANINSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS STATEASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIAARCHITECTS NORTHERNCALIFORNIA SECTIONS, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SECTIONS, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS SOUTHERNCALIFORNIA CHAPTER, ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA GENERALCONTRACTORS OF SAX FRANCISCO

EDITOR

EDWINBERGSTROM . LOS ANCELES

'939

PRICE FIVEDOLLARS

65 Appendix Connections: The EERl Oral History Series

8E C T I0N 3400

PART THIRTY-FOUR

STRUCTURAL SAFETY GENERAL PROVISIONS AND PROTECTION AGAINST EARTHQUAKES

SECTION 3400. METHODS OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN. (a) Loads, Stresses, and Methods of Design. Every fire block, fire division, and building and every structural part thereof shall be designed in accordance with the loads, stresses and methods of design set forth in this Code that are applicable to the building under consideration. In the absence of definite provisions in this Code for the design of any fire block or building or structural part thereof, the method of design used therefor shall admit of analysis in accordance with the established principles of mechanics and of structural design, and be approved by the Board of Examiners and Appeal [Seriion 400(e)].

(al) Every floor of every fire block in a building shall be designed to carry, without exceeding the design working stresses prescribed in this Code, the dead loads imposed on it and the gravity live loads due to the predominant purpose for which the floor is used, the minimum amounts of such live loads being prescribed in this Code.

Every roof and every appendage of a building shall be similarly designed, and the gravity live loads assumed to be carried by the appendages shall be those prescribed by this Code. (a2) Every building and part and appendage thereof shall be designed to resist, at least to the extent required by this Code, the wind forces and lateral forces that are or may be imposed on it, the minimum amounts of such forces being prescribed in this Code. (b) Members and Elements Subject to Combined Direct and Flex- ural Stresses. Structural members and elements subject to combined bending and direct stresses, with the maximum bending occurring at a point outside the middle third of the length of such member or element, shall be designed and proportioned so that the maximum combined unit working stresses in the end thirds of the member or element will not exceed the amount allowed in this Code for flexural unit working stresses, and so that said combined unit working stresses in the middle

299

66 Michael V. Pregnoff Appendix

SECTION 3dOO 5401

third of the member or element will not exceed the amount allowed for axial unit working stresses; provided that, if the flexural unit working stress does not exceed ten (10) per cent of the axial working stress, then no account of the flexural stress need be taken in the design. (c) Limiting Deflections. The deflectyon of any beam, girder, joist, slab, or truss that is to support a plastered ceiling shall not exceed the number of inches or fractional part thereof prescribed by the following formula:

y = 0.11, ; wherein

y = maximum deflection, in inches, and L =clear span of beam, girder, joist, slab, or truss, in feet.

SECTION 3401. LATERAL FORCES. (a) Wind Force. The wind pressure shall be considered to act in- wardly or outwardly in any direction, upon the projection of the building or its appendage or roof structure on a vertical plane normal to the assumed direction of the wind. (al) The wind pressure assumed for any building not more than sixty (60) feet in height shall be not less than fifteen (15) pounds per square foot. If the height of the building is more than sixty (60) feet, then the wind pressure assumed for the portion of the building above said sixty feet shall be not less than twenty (20) pounds per square foot. (a2) The wind pressure on tanks, smoke stacks, water cooling towers, signs, and similar exposed roof structures and their supports, shall be not less than twenty-five (25) pounds per square foot of gross area of the projected surface. (a3) For combined wind and live load. the total vertical load on roofs need not be more than twenty (20) pounds per square foot, and the uplift pressure on flat or inclined roof surfaces shall be not less than ten (10) pounds per square foot of projected area.

(b) Lateral Force Due to Earthquake. The lateral forces due to earthquake shall be considered as acting in any horizontal direction, and the amount of such forces shall be as follows: (bl) Wood framed buildings (Type W construction) shall resist a lateral force not less than (Insert here the percentage set out in

300

67 Appendix Connections: The EERl Oral History Series

SECTION 8401

column 1 or column 2, paragraph (bl), of Appendix D) of the combined dead and live loads required therefor by this Code. (b2) (Insert here the paragraph (b2) set out in column 1 or column 2 of Appendix D). (b3) Buildings having bearing walls of reinforced concrete or reinforced brick shall resist a lateral force equal to not less than (Insert here the percentage set out in column 1 or column 2, paragraph (b3), of Appendix D) of the combined dead and live loads required therefor by this Code.

(b4) Buildings having bearing walls of unreinforced masonry shall resist a lateral force equal to not less than ten (10) per cent of the combined dead and live loads required therefor by this Code. (b5) Parapet walls, cantilever walls above roofs, exterior orna- mentation, and appendages other than marquises, shall resist, normal to the wall, a lateral force equal to one hundred (100) per cent of their dead load weight. Roof structures, tank towers, tanks and contents, chimneys, smoke stacks, and marquises, shall resist a lateral force equal to twenty (20) per cent of the combined dead and live loads required therefor by this Code.

The values of lateral force given in this sub-paragraph (b5) shall not apply to the supporting structural members of the structures named therein, which need not resist greater lateral forces than those required for the entire structure.

(b6) For the combination of dead load, live load, and lateral forces, an increase of not more than (Insert here the percentage set out in column 1 or column 2, paragraph (b6), of Appendix D) of the unit working stresses required by this Code may be used in designing the strength of building members. (c) Live Load Basis for Lateral Force Design. The live load basis that shall be used for the lateral force design of buildings and their fire-divisions to contain predominantly the kinds of occupancies listed in column 6, Part 2, of Table 1202, and for the lateral force design of the parts or appendages of buildings named in column 2 of Table 1203, shall be not less than the amount set out, in pounds per square foot, in column 3, Part 2, of Table 1202, nor less than the amount set out by reference, in pounds per square foot, or in pounds per lineal foot, in column 6 of Table 1203, respectively, in a box horizontally opposite

301 Michael V. Pregnoff Appendix

SECTION 3401 3402

the box containing the description of the kind of occupancy, or the part or appendage of the building under consideration. (d) Required Resistance Against Torsional Moments. In buildings having members that will act as rigid horizontal diaphragms, the structural units which resist the lateral earthquake force shall be so arranged that, in any horizontal plane, the centroid of such resisting structural units will be coincident with the center of gravity of the weight of the building; otherwise proper provision shall be made for the resulting torsional moment of the building. (e) Distribution of Shears. Shears shall be distributed to the various resisting units in accordance with the principle of relative rigidities. (f) Reducing Gravity Live Loads for Lateral Force Design. Except as provided in Section 3401(c), unit gravity live loads [Section 34021 may be reduced twenty-five (25) per cent for lateral force design.

(8) Loads for Retaining Walls. The lateral pressure of earth, or other materials, including the effect of partial or complete saturation of earth and the effect of surcharge shall be computed in accordance with a formula approved by the Building Inspector, but in no case shall earth pressure on a vertical or approximately vertical wall, without any hydrostatic pressure, be taken less than a fluid pressure of twenty- five (25) pounds per square foot per foot of depth, plus the equivalent depth of surcharge. The surcharge for sidewalk loads shall be assumed not less than two (2) feet, and the surcharge for street loads shall be assumed not less than three (3) feet.

SECTION 3402. GRAVITY LIVE LOADS. (a) Gravity Live Loads Required. The unit gravity live loads that shall be used in the design of any fire block to contain predominantly a kind of occupancy listed in column 6, Part 2, of Table 1202, or in the design of any part or appendage of any building named in column 2 of Table 1203, shall be not less than the amount set out as a concentrated amount, or by reference, or in pounds per square foot of horizontal projection of floor, roof, part, or appendage, or in pounds per lineal foot, in column 2, Part 2, Table 1202 and in column 5 of Table 1203, respectively, in a box horizontally opposite the box containing the description of the kind of occupancy of the fire block or the name of the part or appendage or the building under consideration.

3 02

69 Appendix Connections: The EERl Oral History Series

SECTION a402

(b) Unlisted Live Loads, and Live Loads for Unlisted Buildings. Unit gravity live loads not listed in said Table 1202 or Table 1203 shall be determined from the proposed use or occupancy, in the manner prescribed in Section 502 of this Code, but no such gravity live load for a fire block used or occupied for storage, warehouse, or similar purpose shall be less than one hundred twenty-five (125) pounds per square foot. (c) Snow Loads. If snow is anticipated, roofs shall be designed for the probable increase in loading, and the total snow load shall be used in lateral force design. (d) Partition Loads. A partition load used in the design of floors may be considered either as a concentrated load or as a uniformly distributed load, equal, in pounds per square foot, to one-twelfth (1/12) of the weight of the partition per linear foot. (e) Arrangement of Live Loads. If the gravity live load is less than one hundred (100) pounds per square foot, or is less than twice the dead load, the moment effect of partial loading on columns may be disregarded. The assumed arrangement of live loads for determining the maximum stresses to be resisted need not be more severe than that of simultaneously loading alternate panels of every floor, an arrangement of loading in which vertical tiers of loaded panels alternate with vertical tiers of unloaded panels. (f) Allowable Reduction of Live Loads. Beams, girders, and trusses that support a tributary floor area in excess of one hundred fifty (150) square feet in area shall be proportioned to carry the full dead load, plus not less than eighty (80) per cent of the required gravity live loads supported thereby. (g) All columns, piers, bearing walls, and bearing partitions shall be proportioned to carry not less than sixty (60) per cent of the gravity live loads supported thereby; provided, that no reduction shall be made in gravity live loads required on roofs when computing the loads carried by such columns, piers, bearing walls, and hearing partitions, and that no reduction in gravity live loads shall be made for such structural members of warehouses, library stack rooms, and other buildings or parts thereof used for storage purposes.

3 03

70 Michael V. Pregnoff Appendix

APPENDIX D

AMOUNT OF LATERAL FORCES DUE TO EARTHQUAKE

The engineers and architects unanimously agree that the effects of lateral forces should be taken into account in the design of buildings to resist earthquakes. The amount of the forces that should be assumed for that purpose and the modifications of the unit working stresses that may be permitted in designing resistance to such forces are set out in columns 1 and 2 of this Apprndzx D. See page 427. The municipality should adopt the provisions set out in one of the said two columns and write them into the proper sub-paragraphs of Section 3401 of its Code, as follows: 1. The percentages set out opposite (bl) and (b3) in column 1 or in column 2 should be adopted by the munifipality and inserted in the proper places in sub-paragraphs (bl) and (b3), respectively, of Section 3401. 2. The text opposite (b2) in column 1 or in column 2 should be adopted by the municipality and inserted as the text of sub-paragraph (b2) of Section 3401. 3. The maximum amount that working stresses may be increased for the combination of dead load, live load, and lateral force is set out as a percentage of the required working stress, opposite (b6) in columns 1 and 2 below: the percentage set out in column 1 may be adopted by the municipality if the amounts of the lateral forces set out in column 1 are adopted by it, and inserted in the proper place in sub-paragraph (b6) oi Section 3401. If the amounts of the lateral forces set out in column 2 are adopted, then the percentage set out opposite fh6) in column 2 should be adopted and inserted in the proper place in sub-paragraph (b6) of Section 3401.

426

71 Appendix Connections: The EERl Oral History Series

APPEND 1X D

I Coliunn 1 Culumn 2 ‘bl) six (6) percent;

(02) Ir buildings having structural ‘02) Buildings in which the structura frames, the columns and bcams of frames are designed to resist I such frames, together with slabs, lateral force equal to not less thar walls, or other structural , ele- tWo 2 percent of the combinec ments, and their connections, tlead acid live loads, shall resist a which may be constructed to act lateral force equal to not less thai- with the frames as distributing six percent of the combined elemcnts in resistance to lateral tlead(6) and live loads required there- forces, shall be made capablc of for by this Code. If the structural resisting a lateral force equal to frames are designed to resist less not less tliaii two (2) percent of than two (2) per cent of said the combined tlead autl live loads loads, then the entire structures required by this Code, and the shall resist a lateral force equal structure shall resist the lateral to eight (8) percent of said load ; forccs, expressed in percentages of the combined dead and live loatls required therefor by this Code, as follows : Top two floors of building.. ,896 3rd and 4th floors from top of bu i ltling ...... 6 70 5th and 6th floors from top of building ...... 4% All floors below 6th floor from top of building...... ,270 Theatres and other buildings without regular floor levels shall resist a lateral load equal to five (5) percent of the combined dead and live loads required therefor by this Code.

(03) five (5) percent ; b3/ eight (S) percent:

(06) seventy-five (75) percent. (06) thirty-three and one-third (33%) percent. iI I __

72 CONNECTIONS The EERI Oral History Series

John E. Rinne

Foreword

I interviewed John Rinne at his Kensington home in the San Francisco Bay area several times from 1986 through 1988, when he was nearing 80. Although he had been retired for several years at the time of the interviews, Rinne was still vigorous and active.

It was easy interviewing him because he had in mind a pretty good road map for topics he wanted to cover. At the time, I was focusing my oral history efforts primarily on seismic safety, and interviewed Rinne especially to cover the development of seismic design in northern California and his leadership of the Joint Committee. The discussion of Separate 66, an important chapter in the development of seismic design, occupies half of this entire oral history. If I had it to do over, I would ask more questions about some of Rinne’s other substantial contributions, as well as more on his family, and his personal motivations and views on the practice of engineering. John Rinne was born in San Francisco in 1909 to parents who had immigrated from Finland. He grew up in Albany (near Berkeley, California) and graduated from Berkeley High School. He attended the University of California at Berkeley and graduated Phi Beta Kappa in 193 1. It was the height of the Depression, and work was sporadic and hard to get. In 1932 Rinne went back to U.C. Berkeley for his Masters degree, which he received in 1934. He then worked with many of the more forward-thinhng engineers in practice in the San Francisco Bay Area at the time, such as John Huber, Henry Dewell, and Austin Earl. In 1937 he began his 32-year career at Chevron, where he soon became supervisor of the civil and architectural department. Rinne retired from Chevron in 1969 and joined Earl and Wright as a vice-president, spending much of his time supervising the design and construction of offshore platforms in the North Sea. He retired from Earl and Wright in 1980.

Throughout his career, John Rinne played a remarkable leadership role in earthquake engineering and in professional earthquake engineering organizations. He was active in EERI in its early days, and chaired the committee that set up the First World Con- ference on Earthquake Engineering. In 1948 he became chair of the Joint Committee and shepherded the design and code effort that resulted in the landmark publication

75 of Sepalpate 66 in 1951 in the ASCEJoumal. Rinne was president of the Structural Engineers Association of Northern California (SEAONC); president of the statewide Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC); president of EERI in 1966-1967; and second president of the International Association for Earthquake Engineering, an organization he helped to found. In 1973 he became president of the national American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). John Rinne died October 16, 1992 at the age of 83, after a lifetime devoted to the engineering profession and the improvement of seismic design. Stanley Scott Research Associate and Research Political Scientist, Retired University of California, Berkeley March 1996

76 A Personal Introduction

When you shook hands with John Rinne, you were instantly aware that he had known manual labor. I was proud of my own strong handshake, but he easily bested me, laughing all the while at my grip. I later learned from his younger brother Clarence that during his teens, John had worked at the White Lumberyard in Berkeley. Han- dling and stackmg lumber all day long every day developed his large strong hands. An immigrant from Finland, John's father had raised his five children in the American tradition of hard work and instilled in them a desire for a university education. According to Clarence Rinne, John always wanted to be an engineer, and aggressively pursued that career at U.C. Berkeley, where he graduated with high honors. Clarence had other ideas at first, and favored English and history, but switched to engineering because it offered a more promising future in those times of economic stress. All jobs were hard to get, however, in those Depression years, and after graduation John and Clarence followed the practice of all young engineers by going from office to office for employment. Where they found work depended on which office had been awarded a design contract. One of the firms was Huber and Knapik Consulting Civil Engineers in San Francisco, where both John and Clarence worked at various times. This was in the early 1930s, when a growing controversy among civil engineers had emerged. Those who were doing structural design for buildings felt that the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) was not responding to their special needs, particularly with respect to their fee schedules. This resulted in formation of regional structural engineers associations in California, and soon afterward of the statewide umbrella group called SEAOC, the Structural Engineers Association of California. At the time, many of the structural engineers left ASCE altogether. Walter Huber of Huber and Knapik, and one of John Rinne's mentors, thought otherwise, resolving to stay with ASCE and its structural section. He never joined SEAOC, but went on to become national president of ASCE. John's approach was quite different, as he was active in both organizations, becoming SEAOC president in 1953, and national ASCE president in 1973. I came to know John personally in 1952 when, with my boss and mentor Rube Binder of Bethlehem Steel, I made frequent trips from our Los Angeles office to San

77 Francisco. In 19.53 I movcd to the San I'rancisco I3ily Arei1 and translerretl ineiiil)ei-ship to the Structural Eiiginccrs Association of Norrhcrn (hlifornia. liubc continiied his liaison IriIis I)etween I ,os Angeles and Sail Francisco. Hc introduced nic to thc Icading northcrn (hlifornia structural cnginecrs of that time, including I lenry I>egeiildb,John Blumc, Art Scclgwicli, Hciiry Powers anti I Iiirolcl I lain~~iill. 111 both riorthcrn and southern California, engineers continued their activity on building codc (Itvtlopitient, IILI~were primarily coiicernecl with strictly local problems, which were considered uniqiic. John liinne, howcver, clearly recognixcl the nrctl li~rit stdtewicle rocle, particularly as his company, Standard Oil, was building facilities in most areas of (;alifornia. ICICRl's I'irst World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, held in Bcrkcley in 1956, also helped ignitc California interest in earthquake-resistant codes and stimulated further dialogue between the two areas, north and south. These north-south discussions became more formal when southern California structural engineer Bill Wheeler was appointed chairman of a 16-member SEAOC seismology committee in the fall of 1956. Wheeler selected Rube Binder as his vice chair, liaison and special advisor. Rube also continued his shuttle diplomacy between the north and the south, helping to reconcile regional differences on seismic design policy in a three year process that produced the first SEAOC Blue Book, including the 1959 Recommendations. I believe the continuing dialogue between Rube Binder and John Rinne had a great deal to do with the achievement of a north-south consensus. Small and excitable, Rube was a marked contrast to John's 6-foot-4-inch, 200 pound quiet presence. Both Rube and John, however, shared a devotion to their profession and a desire to seek common ground for agreement in engineering judgments. John chaired a subcommittee set up to prepare the 1960 Commentary explaining the basis for the new SEAOC Recommendations. Roy Johnston and Herman Finch completed the subcommittee membership. I was active on the SEAONC seismology committee, and was assigned to help with the Commentary. I recall that while we all contributed as best we could, it was John who did the actual writing and editing of the Commentary drafts. I was very much impressed by the quality of his writing and his editorial skills--his original drafts did not need much revision. We also had the benefit of John's extensive technical knowledge of all areas of civil engineering. Furthermore he brought to the task what he learned from his earlier experience in 1948-1951 as chairman of the ASCE/SEAONC joint committee that produced the ASCE document called

78 "Separate66. " Sepa~ate66 firmly established the dynamic basis for earthquake analysis of structures and building code design requirements. John's oral history describes the joint committee's handi- work in some detail, providing informative information to engineers seeking to learn how the present code developed. As you read this oral history, you must come to realize that John Rinne was an extraordinary engineer, who rose to the top of his profession through skill, intelligence, and judgment, plus hard work and perseverance. He was also a fine human being, tolerant, kind, and thoughtful of others. I was privileged on occasion to be invited to his house, and enjoyed the warmth of his and Rose Marie's hospitality. I can also remember him seated with his young sons on the sidelines of softball games at Silverado Country Club in the Napa Valley-before it became the exclusive resort it is now. SEAONC picnics held there were attended by virtually all members because of the opportunity it offered to meet informally and make friends with fellow engineers, while also enjoying sports events and a barbecue. During 1993 memorial services for John, his son Ed had these insights into his father's character, given in a eulogy at their family church:

Dad loved ballgames, ice cream, a good stov, nodding off when things got boring, singing, and a good game of cards. After achieving so much in his profissional life, he finally took up golfwhen he was around 70, and managed to break into the 90's on a fairly regular basis while packing his clubs around Tilden. I never watched him lawn bowl but he certainly enjoyed it, and particularly the fi-iendship at the club. His association with this church was particularly enjoyable, both spiipitually and socially.

Dad taught us as he did others, through the examples set in his actions, and was not one to lecture us much. In my case he was able topass on some knack for civil engineering, and a stmightfornard approach to attacking and solving situations. But outside of his love and support, his high ethical standards and integrity stand out as qualities I will never forget. Robert Preece PreeceIGoudie & Associates San Francisco May 1996

Chapter 7 Background and Education

"1 declared that 1 wanted to be a civil engineer, and selected a college preparatory curriculum, without knowing exactly what a civil engineer did. I'

Rinne: I was born in San Francisco, on September 24,1909, of Finnish parents who came over here from Finland and who in 1915 became citizens of the United States. When I was very young-about three years old-my folks built a house in Albany, which is still occupied at 1035 Curtis Street. I went through the Berkeley school system, starting with Jefferson School at Rose and Sacramento streets, because nearby Marin School had not been built. Later, I went through the sixth grade at the Marin School. I transferred to what is now the Martin Luther King Junior High School, which at that time was Garfield. From there I went to Berkeley High School, where I graduated in Decem- ber, 1926. I worked at the lumberyard where my father was also employed, and had been for a number of years. I did heavy stevedoring work until summer 1927, at which time I went with a pal of mine, Louis Dragon, for a couple of weeks of vacation at the Berkeley City Camp at Echo Lake in the Sierras. Then I started at Cal in the fall of 1927 and proceeded from there. Going back a way, it's interesting that when I was at

81 Chapter I Connections: The EERl Oral History Series

Garfield, going into the ninth grade, it was Scott: Runner-up to the University Medal- incumbent upon us to make a decision [tenta- ist-the University Medal is considered the tive, perhaps] as to what our objective was. highest or one of the highest of such awards Were we going to take a college preparatory given by the University? course at the high school, or prepare for a Rinne: Scholarship awards, yes. In the sum- vocational, or a commercial type of curricu- mers, during vacation, I had worked for various lum? On my own, being the oldest member of companies. After my freshman year I had a stint our family of my generation, one of five chil- at the surveying summer camp in Marin dren, I declared that l wanted to he a civil engi- County. I put in a couple of months with South- neer, and selected a college preparatory ern Pacific Company, digging post holes in the curriculum, without knowing exactly what a Sacramento Valley, which is enough to make civil engineer did. I had no civil engineering one want to avoid that kmd of labor for a living. background, other than what one would read in the papers. Later, in August 1934, I married my classmate Rose Marie Marcella Shiely, UCB 193 1, who Scott: Something must have prompted your had immediately followed up her A.B. degree interest. with a secondary teacher's credential. She was Rinne: Yes. It was largely due to an interest in teaching commercial subjects in Sunnyvale and mathematics. I was much more interested in commuting to San Francisco/Berkeley so we that than in history, or English. Those subjects could be together weekends. She was required were not of my particular liking, although I did to drop out of teaching when she got married. reasonably well in them. I graduated from Ber- We had three sons, Stan in 1935, Ed in 1940, keley E-Iigh School in December of 1926. I was John M. in 1944. one of the four commencement speakers, Rose Marie passed away in 1974 in London, although I never would have recognized my the result of an accident at home [Rinne was own talk because it had been so heavily edited then located in London, working on North Sea by my English teacher. oil projects]. I met up with Josephine Claussen in Berkeley-a Chevron widow and mother of UC Berkeley: 1927-1931 a son, Dr. Bill Claussen, and daughter, Jane Trotman. Jo and I were married May 3 1, 1975. Rinne: I won one of the $50 Kraft prizes in Both of us have grandchildren, she with five, I my freshman year at the University of Califor- with four, several of whom are already pursuing nia, Berkeley. It was strictly a scholarship type postgraduate studies. of thing. I had received very good grades. In fact, I did all the way through my four years at Summer Vacation Work at Chevron Cal to my Bachelors degree in 193 1. I was a member of honor societies: Phi Beta Kappa, Rinne: During my sophomore-junior- Tau Beta Pi, Chi Epsilon. As it turned out I was senior vacations I worked for Chevron at the runner-up to the medalist. Richmond refinery. To start with, Frank Maker

82 John E. Rinne Background and Education Chapter I

was responsible for my getting a summer vaca- then Standard Oil Company of California. The tion job at Standard Oil of California's Rich- work of the engineering group at the Rich- mond Refinery [now Chevron]. He was a mond Refinery involved mostly process plant next-door neighbor of a classmate of mine in design and materials ordering. Later, in 1937, high school, Warren Hoyt, and Warren intro- when I started my 32 years with Chevron, the duced me to Frank. Frank took it upon himself engineering department had been moved to to get me the summer job, following my sopho- San Francisco and existed as a separate general more year at U.C. Berkeley. It was not in engi- engineering department. neering at the start. I was a helper in the As I said, this was all largely at the encourage- company's boiler house at Richmond. About a ment of my good friend Frank L. Maker, who month after I started that summer, the work in was an architect by training, but who was more the boiler house slowed down and I, along with of an engineer than an architect, because engi- other vacation help, was transferred to the bar- neering was what he did most of the time-as a rel house, and there we were engaged in load- specialist in various branches of engineering, ing boxcars with 42 -gallon barrels of oil which an integrated oil company needed. products. Scott: Maker was an employee of Chevron? In the following year, my junior year, during summer and Christmas vacations, I worked Rinne: Right. As it turned out, when I gradu- with the company's engineering department, ated in May of 193 1 with my bachelors degree, which at that time was part of the Richmond Chevron had orders from its board of directors Refinery work force for Chevron, which was to hire no one. I was out on the streets for a bit.

Chapter 2 Employment During the Depression

"Ed Knapik, an associate of Walter L. Huber, asked me whether I wanted to go to work for them. Heavens! I was on the ferry boat the n ext morning . I/

Scott: When you graduated in 193 1, the Depression was already severe? Rinne: Yes, it had hit pretty hard. When I received my bachelor's degree in May of 193 1, I had expected to be hired by Chevron. But company policy in the depth of the Depres- sion ruled against any hires. That put me on a job hunt, which in June of 193 I landed me in Henry D. Dewell's office. Largely as a result of recommendations that my dad's boss gave to me, I was introduced, among others, to Henry Dew- ell-a structural engineer and an earthquake engineer of considerable renown in his day.

Perhaps with some reluctance, Dewell put me on and I went to work for him in June of 193 1. Mainly I was working on the design of school buildings for Principia College in the Mid- west. Henry Dewell's wife was a Christian Scientist, and Prin- cipia College was a strong Christian Science college. I guess she somehow had an influence on Dewell's getting the job of

85 Chapter 2 Connections: The EERi Oral History Series

designing the structures for the Principia So I was let go because of Dewell's stroke, and College. That involved the design of buildings left Dewell and Earl's office in 1932 to go back back in Missouri, where earthquake was not a to school and work in Professor Raymond serious consideration. Davis's office and laboratory, while at the same I was also workmg on designs for the California time taking courses that led me to a master's Sugar Company. I did considerable shuttling degree in 1935. I worked in the materials labo- back and forth between Dewell's office and ratory under Professor Davis in his concrete Huber and Knapik's office. But we did also research, related mostly to Hoover Dam. At have some earthquake renovation work, princi- the same time those of us who were working pally for the C&H Sugar Refinery at Crockett, part time on the project were also taking some where they were doing work on strengthening courses. Because I expected to work for Chev- some cast iron columns, among other things, ron eventually, I included courses in heat trans- and also looking at the lateral force capabilities fer, automotive engineering, advanced math, of the old buildings there. and vibrations. I completed the courses for my master's degree in one school year. Work on Master's Degree I did not get the M.S. until 1935, however, by Rinne: Then in 1932 Dewell unfortunately which time I had completed the Master's thesis, which we were required to do at that time. It suffered a stroke and virtually closed his office. involved shrinkage studies on concrete blocks, Austin Earl, a University of California class- inate of Henry Dewell, came in and with a skel- which were cubes about 18 inches on a side. There was some testing involved, but the test- eton crew continued to carry on those things ing was doing mostly related to my master's that had to be done. Earl came in and took over I Dewell's office as principal. He took over what thesis. I was working for Davis more as a work remained on the Principia job, where draftsman, along with my friend Phil Fletcher, there were not that many buildings left to be a classmate of mine in 193 I, who was a much done. It was more follow-up work of an engi- better draftsman than I was, and which neering nature, following shop drawings and Raymond Davis recognized. He preferred inspections. Dewell's office became Earl's Fletcher's drafting work to mine, and I do not blame him for that. office at that point. Buzz Donathan G.] Wright was there, and continued for a while, but then Buzz went to work on the foundations of the Golden Gate Bridge, only later to return to what became Earl and Wright. Dewell came I. Henry Dewell opened his practice right after the back a year later, after he recovered from his Panama Pacific Exposition in 191.5. He was an stroke. While he was physically handicapped- important figure in early-day earthquake engi- his right side was inoperative-he was mentally neering and was a leader on the team that worked on a state building code for California alert. Then for a time the office was called (the 1939 Chamber of Commerce code) after the Dewell and Earl, and later Earl and Wright.' 192.5 Santa Barbara earthquake.

86 John E. Rinne Employment During the Depression Chapter 2

Shuttling Between Offices most pleasant thing, but we soon learned how to accommodate ourselves to that kind of Rinne: In 1933, while I was still at the Uni- weather. When I came back from Sacramento versity of California laboratory workmg on in mid- 193 7, Dewell and Earl didn't have any- Professor Raymond Davis's Hoover Dam thing to do, but Huber and Knapik did, so I work, I received a call from Ed Knapik. was back with Huber and Knapik. Knapik, an associate of Walter L. Huber, asked me whether I wanted to go to work for them. Scott: How long had you been in Sacra- Heavens! I was on the ferry boat the next mento? morning to go to San Francisco to work for Rinne: Almost exactly a year. It was in July of Huber and Knapik. It was work on the design 1937 that I came back, as I recall. of buildings-which involved buildings designed for lateral forces, albeit at that partic- Recollections of Austin Earl ular time the codification of school buildings and Henry Dewell was just getting under way. The Long Beach earthquake was in 193 3. Scott: Would you give some more of your recollections of both Austin Earl and Henry I had worked for Huber and Knapik for about a Dewell. Earl apparently was a person of consid- year when their work load dropped down, erable stature in engineering back in those whereas Dewell and Earl, as the firm was then days. As you suggested, Dewell was recognized called, had work to do on design of some struc- as an important figure in early-day earthquake tures for the Department of Water for the City engineering in the Bay Area. of Sacramento. So I did design work on overhead storage tanks, and went up later Rinne: I first ran into Austin Earl when I [1936-19371 as a construction engineer on went back to Dewell and Earl and worked on these facilities. what developed as the Sacramento project I went up on in 1936. At that time, Earl was a Scott: So you went back with Dewell-then partner of Henry Dewell-in Dewell and called Dewell and Earl-and then worked in Earl-and he was an extremely good engineer. Sacramento? A very capable guy and he was also a crotchety Rinne: Yes, first in San Francisco on design, old guy. Not necessarily hard to get along with, and in Sacramento for a year on engineering but kind of rough. for construction. It was work for the City of I remember, for example, when I was up in Sac- Sacramento-actually for Dewell and Earl-on ramento on that water project, Dewell and Earl construction engineering work for water facili- came up to Sacramento to inspect the overhead ties we had designed in San Francisco in storage tank I was working on. I was up there as 193.5-36. I went to Sacramento in 1936, a hot senior project engineer and had several people July day. It was 10.5 degrees in Sacramento at working for me up there, one of whom was a the time, I recall distinctly, and moving into a man older than me, and who had considerable non-air-conditioned house wasn't exactly the experience in construction engineering. I was

87 Chapter 2 Connections: The EERI Oral History Series

up high on the tank, which was 100 feet off the Walter Huber ground at the bottom, and then went on up Scott: When you were working with Dewell, another 40 feet or thereabouts. Anyway I was did he promote the importance of seismic resis- up on the tank, and Earl called up to me-in tance, or instill in you a sense of the impor- effect they wanted to start back home, to San tance of seismic design? Francisco. I said, "I'll be down in just a minute," or some words to that effect. Rinne: Well, of course for that I also have to credit Walter Huber, because jobs I had with Later, I got a call from Henry Dewell to come Walter Huber at that time directly involved to San Francisco. So, I was down there the next design for earthquake resistance. Some were morning and got chewed out because I school buildings. Both men [Huber and Dew- shouldn't have been so rude to a man of Earl's ell] recognized that earthquake forces on any stature, to have said something that might have structure related to masses [weights] and stiff- been mistaken as talking down to my superior. nesses. In due course Huber achieved some That was the extent of that particular deal. He national stature in the engineering profession, had said something to Dewell. It did ire me a and became national president of the American little bit, so my response might have raised hell Society of Civil Engineers [ASCE] in 1953. and caused a little bit of a stink. I was concerned about it, because I told Henry Dewell Scott: Huber's seismic work on schools that, here I was up there as the head of the con- would have been after passage of the 1933 Field struction and had older people working for me Act, which applied seismic standards to public and had to have a little bit of respect paid the schools? other way, too. Henry took the position that I should be careful how I should do this, how I Rinne: Yes. Shortly after the California legis- handled Earl. lature passed the Field Act, it also passed the Riley Act, for general construction in Califor- Earl was also responsible for the engineering of nia, requiring a minimum 2 percent lateral the Posey Tube across to Alameda, the first force weight factor, leaving anything more than tube. He was also very active in the drilling of that up to the designer, the structural engineer, the Broadway Tunnel to Orinda, which ran to do what he felt was necessary. The codes into considerable trouble. Earl was a consultant were quite variable at that time. Back then, San on that, and he told the contractor how to do Francisco didn't have much of a seismic code at this work without having it cave in. They were all, but primarily relied on resistance to wind having trouble because of ground movement forces, which relate to building face area there. The soil would have a tendency to move exposed to the wind. into the hole that had been excavated, so it was important to make sure they kept their lining Scott: You mentioned Henry Dewell being work immediately behind the excavation-not active in early earthquake engineering and seis- to let the excavation get way ahead of the lin- mic design efforts, at least up to the time he ing, which would permit a larger cave-in. had the stroke. In the late 1920s and early

88 John E. Rinne Employment During the Depression Chapter 2

1930s he did a lot of work on drafting prelimi- visions for the Uniform Building Code. I previ- nary versions of what became the building code ously thought this work had followed the 1933 published in 1939 by the California State earthquake of Long Beach, but in March 1988 Chamber of Commerce. Buzz Wright assured me that it was done after the 1925 Santa Barbara earthquake. Earl was a Rinne: Austin Earl was as active in earth- good, straightforward, very succinct writer. He quake engineering as Henry Dewell was. Earl wrote good reports. was responsible for writing the earthquake pro-

Chapter 3 Career

"I was responsible for establishing earthquake design criteria for Chevron 's engineering department.., . Later the criteria were influenced by, if not dictated by, the work of the Joint Committee. If

Rinne: On returning from Sacramento in 1937, I again started working for Huber and Knapik. Then when I had worked for Huber and Knapik for 2 to 3 months, I got an invi- tation to go to work for Standard Oil of California, later Chev- ron, from Jim Stirton, who was assistant chief engineer for Chevron in the corporation's engineering department in San Francisco. The offer was good-paying all of $300 a month, a lot of money at that time, although it makes you laugh today. Walter Huber advised me to take the job, which I did. menI started my long-term employment with Chevron] I immediately got involved in the civil and architectural division of the engineering department, and shortly thereafter became supervisor of that division-a job I held for many of the 32 years that I worked for Chevron.

Scott: You moved up pretty fast?

91 Chapter 3 Connections: The EERl Oral History Series

Rinne: I moved up to supervisor of that par- refinery, and they expanded it to 20,000 barrels. ticular division rather quickly. This involved all It primarily involved work on the furnaces, the of the structural and civil engineering work, as oil heaters, and on pumps and heat exchangers. well as the architectural work, that is demanded Then I got involved in civil engineering and of a corporate engineering department. We architectural work. Not very long after I joined had four or five architects working, as well as a the engineering department in 1937, perhaps a group of half a dozen civil and structural engi- year later as I recall, I became the supervisor of neers. We were involved in designing struc- what was called the civil and architectural divi- tures for vertical load requirements, but also sion, and the drafting room also, as the drafting for the lateral load requirements of earthquake room was constituted then-later the drafting as well as wind. room became a separate section of the engi- Among the structures other than buildings and neering department. That happened within a refinery-type structures were offshore struc- year or a year and a half of my joining Chevron tures for the production of crude oil in the in 1937. Santa Barbara and Los Angeles areas. Besides Carrying over my experience with Dewell and buildings and structures, the civil and architec- Earl and Huber and Knapik, where we were tural division was responsible for the design working on earthquake design of buildings, I and construction of pipelines, which activity was responsible for establishing earthquake took me to Canada and Alaska in 1943 on a design criteria for Chevron's engineering series of war-induced pipelines. department and applying these criteria. Later menI started at Chevron in 19371 the engi- the criteria were influenced by, if not dictated neering department was providing engineering by, the work of the Joint Committee formed functions for all of the operating departments, about 1948, and which I chaired. I will discuss not only the manufacturing department both the Joint Committee and the report later. responsible for the refineries. Nevertheless, a large proportion of the work the engineering 193 7- 1969: Many Projects department did was in relation to process plant Rinne: During my 32 years of service there design, for which I, as a civil engineer and at Chevron-1937-1969-the work included structural engineer, had responsibility for the project management of many projects, includ- foundation designs and the structural aspects of ing many major buildings in San Francisco at support of vessels, for example. This included 225 Bush, then 555 Market Street, and many both wind design and earthquake design for other areas of the company's operations. lateral forces. Included in the civil and architectural division's My first assignment on coming back to the involvement were several pipeline projects. engineering department, however, was one of These included the World War I1 conversion doubling the size of the Bahrain Refinery from of the PG&E's STNPAC gas line, which runs 10,000 barrels per day to 20,000 barrels per from Kettleman Hills to Los Medanos, and day. It was an already built 10,000 barrel-a-day which normally even today supplies a good part

92 John E. Rinne Career Chapter 3

of the gas that we burn in our [San which the civil and architectural division had Francisco-Oakland] Bay Area houses. project responsibility. The pipeline ran from a During wartime, however, it became incum- gilsonite area in Utah to Colorado, where bent upon us to convert that line to oil service, gilsonite was the feedstock for a new refinery in order not to have to rely upon tankers run- there. The gilsonite was sent as a slurry because ning up the coast, subject then to possible Japa- it was almost like coal, but was lighter and nese submarines. I was construction engineer could be ground up, mixed with water into a on that particular job. It involved construction slurry, and sent over the hill to the pipeline not only on the work of conversion of the junction or the terminal near Grand Junction, STANPAC pipeline, but also the addition of Colorado. I think in recent years Chevron has other pipelines that brought gas from the Rio sold that refinery. Vista area in the San Joaquin Delta area to sup- plement or replace the gases that were lost due Gulf Coast ReJinely, Pascapla to taking the STANPAC line out of gas service. Rinne: I was also a member of a team evaluating sites for what became a large Chevron The Canol Project refinery in Pascagula, Mississippi. That was an Rinne: In 1942 my pipeline experience also interesting assignment, technically as well as took me to Edmonton, Alberta, and north into climatologically, including the mosquitoes that Alaska and the Yukon Territory on the Canol were in abundance down there. I might men- pipeline. This was in the design and construction that in the summer mosquitoes were also tion of several hundred miles of pipelines to abundant in Alaska and the Yukon Territory. provide crude oil from Norman Wells in the We had about a six-man team down there, and MacKenzie River area, to Whitehorse, Yukon the Pascagula people put us up in a facility, Territory, where a new refinery was built to which was interesting. It was a nice place to be, provide an alternative source of vitally needed but I personally made the recommendation gasolines to avoid sea transport, which was that we not speak among ourselves at all, potentially interruptible by the Japanese. It also because at the time we were considering alter- involved gasoline distribution pipelines ranging native sites for this refinery and I felt sure that from Watson Lake in the territory, through the room was bugged. I am sure it was bugged. Carcross and Whitehorse to Fairbanks, Alaska, If we had given any indication at all of what we and also Skagway to Carcross. This was the Canol Project. The Bechtel people were pri- 2. Finnie, Richard, Canol, The Sub-A.rztc Pipeline and Refinery Project. Constructed by Bechtel- marily interested in it as a joint effort called Price-Callahan for the Corps of Engineers, United States Army, 1942-44. San Francisco, Bechtel-Price-Callahan.2’ Ryder and Ingram, Publishers, 1945. 3. Ueda, Herbert T., D. E. Garfield, and F. D. Gilsonite Slurry Pipeline, Utah- Colorado Haynes, The Canol Pipeline Project: A Historical Review. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Rinne: A rather unique pipeline was the one Laboratory, Special Report 77-34, Hanover, N. for gilsonite [a form of carbon] slurry, for H., October 1977.

93 Chapter 3 Connections: The EERl Oral History Series

were interested in, they [the eavesdroppers] not a big settlement on one side of the tank and would have found out. only a little settlement on another side. Anyway, we ended up selecting the Pascagula site on which the refinery was built. It has been Ofisshore Plut$omts expanded considerably since, both technically Rinne: During the last part of my work for from the standpoint of being more flexible to Chevron, while I was still heading the civil and be able to process almost any kind of a crude architectural division, I was also a project man- oil, and also enlarged. I do not know what its ager for the offshore platforms that Chevron capacity is today, but it's probably in the order needed at that time. The first was Platform of 200,000 barrels a day crude feed rate. Hazel, which was built off of Santa Barbara, California. We later did other platforms in the Scott: Were the various sites you were con- Santa Barbara area, and down south of Los sidering within the Pascagula region? Angeles we had other kinds of offshore facili- Rinne: No, they included some sites over in ties for which I was responsible. Georgia. We looked at several different areas In short, before left Chevron in 1969, spent besides the Pascagula area, but we ended up I I there. It was all right. It turned out to be a good several years on offshore structure design, site. We had to build a large amount of storage which included project management of projects tankage at Pascagula. The tankage was built on like Platform Hazel and Platform Hilda, and a a foundation we knew was subject to settlement couple of other platforms that were done under the tanks. Foundation investigations before I left Chevron. They were designed pri- indicated that a fairly uniform thickness of marily for wave forces, and only incidentally compressible soils overlay firmer soils below. checked for what now is considered to be a rather nominal lateral force system, although Before the Pascagula refinery project, largely as the wave forces themselves were responsible for a result of recommendations originally made by substantial lateral forces against the structure. the soil mechanics firm Dames and Moore, we had already adopted the idea of building the The structures themselves were supported off bottom of such a tank so that it could accom- the bottom. In the case of Hazel, they were modate settlement, perhaps in time requiring supported on what would now be termed releveling or recontouring of the bottom. That "spread footings. " The caissons actually were was much cheaper than building piled founda- jetted down to a firm-enough soil so that they tions to support the tanks. We saved the com- didn't have supporting piles. Hazel was in about pany a lot of money. The conditions at the 100-foot water depth. Hilda, the next one, was Pascagula site, however, as well as at some other in slightly deeper water, maybe 130 or 140 feet, sites, were so uniform that there was no ten- and it did require piles, which were drilled and dency for unequal settlement around the tank. driven. In the case of Hilda, we did the design It all went down together evenly, and there was work ourselves in our division of Chevron.

94 John E. Rinne Career Chapter 3

Then in 1969 I retired from Chevron and went I joined Earl and Wright as a vice-president, to work as a vice president of Earl and Wright and devoted ten years with them to managing [in San Francisco], at that time a subsidiary of offshore design projects, as well as developing SEDCO,, an offshore drilling company, where new platform concepts, both for clients and for for ten years I worked on the design of offshore ourselves. New concepts were needed because platforms, including a two-year stint in the water depths of offshore work were increas- England [1974-19761, where I was managing ing significantly. It has gotten to the point director of a North Sea joint enterprise with where now we think nothing of building a plat- C.J. Brown [CJB-Earl and Wright], an English form in 1000 feet of water depth. I say “We contractor. think nothing.” Well, yes, we do think something-in fact, we think a lot!-but it is done. Working Again for Earl and Wright During the ten years with Earl and Wright, I Rinne: When I went to work for Earl and was in London for two years, 1974-76 as man- Wright in 1969, it had been purchased by aging director of CJB-Earl and Wright, a joint SEDCO, an offshore drilling contractor. For a venture primarily involving design of offshore number of years, starting with the design of platforms for the North Sea. Continuing in this Platform Hazel off Santa Barbara, Earl and same capacity when I returned from London, I Wright had been working primarily on the retired from Earl and Wright on January 1, design of offshore drilling platforms for the oil 1980. Except for an occasional consulting job industry. Although Austin Earl had died several on some buildings, since 1980 I have essentially years earlier, the name Earl and Wright had been fully retired. been maintained from when I had been with Earl and Wright before [in 19321.

Chapter 4

A 0 00 0 n 0 0 Activities in Engineering Organizations

“I’m not so sure, however, that we know so much about proper and adequate design

I, for earthquakes.., ,

Engineering Associations and Clubs Rinne: About the time I went to Chevron in 1937, Ed Knapik was secretaryh-easurer of the San Francisco Section, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Sometime after that, Knapik decided that he wanted to get out of the secretary/treasurer job, and convinced me that I should take it. So I became secretary/ treasurer of the San Francisco Section. That was an important start to advancement through the years, to president, nationally, of the American Society of Civil Engineers. During this period with Chevron I was active in professional societies-state, national, and international-concerned with seismic design and construction. I was involved both technically-e.g., chairing the Joint Committee of the San Francisco Section of ASCE and the Structural Engineers Association of Northern California (SEA0NC)-and administratively- e.g., president and board member of ASCE locally [I9541 and nationally [1973]. I was president of SEAONC in 1951; of the

97 Chapter 4 Connections: The EERI Oral History Series

Structural Engineers Association of California Earthquake Engineering Research in 1953; of EERI, the Earthquake Engineering Institute (EERI) Research Institute, in 1966-67; and of the International Association for Earthquake Engi- Rinne: While the Joint Committee was neering (IAEE) in 1964-68. active, I was invited [in 195 I] to join the Earth- quake Engineering Research Institute. It was Also at about the same time I joined Chevron I then a very exclusive group, providing consul- also joined the Engineers Club, and was a tation to the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey member of it for a number of years. I also on earthquake engineering, and especially on joined SEAONC. Henry Dewell was not only a measurement of earthquake strong motion. good structural engineer and a good earth- Much later, EERI opened its membership so quake engineer, but was also a member of the that it has become a national organization. In state registration board for civil engineering, fact, one of the more recent presidents has and he induced me to grade papers on the civil been Professor Bob Whitman from MIT. In engineering examination, which I did. As soon the earlier years it was led mostly by California as I was eligible I took the civil engineering engineers. I was also president of EERI for a examination myself, in the structural engineer- relatively short time [1966-19671, and before ing option-as it was at that time-and passed that was on the EERI board of directors. it readily. It wasn't difficult; I'd had enough experience to do that. Rinne: In 1955, as a member of the EERI I received my civil engineers license when I was board I suggested that we initiate a world conference on earthquake engineering. This was 2 S. About two years later, when I had enough years experience, I applied for and received a undertaken and held at the University of Cali- structural license. I then got involved on com- fornia, in July of 1956. I was general chairman mittees of the Structural Engineers Association of that conference, which included papers from of California. My work on codifying lateral many foreign countries, including Japan, Chile, forces began early, but I do not remember pre- New Zealand, and Peru. cisely what we were working on at that time. It The second world conference was held in Japan was not until considerably later [ 19481 that the in 1962, and we have continued to hold these Joint Committee was formed that was respon- world earthquake conferences on a quadrennial sible for producing the Separate 66 report. basis, starting in 1956. It is amazing that the

Joint Committee and Separate 66 4. In 1948 San Francisco adopted the "Vensano" lateral force code provisions, devised by Harry Rinne: In 1948 I was appointed chairman of Vensano, then director of public works for the the Joint Committee of the San Francisco Sec- City. Vensano's code was controversial in the San Francisco engineering community. Adop- tion of ASCE and SEAONC. The Joint Com- tion of the Vensano code prompted formation of mittee's main objective was to formulate an the Joint Committee to work on what came to be known as the "Separate 66' report, and which earthquake lateral force code that we could rec- recommended new lateral force design provi- ommend to the City of San Franci~co.~ sions.

98 John E. Rinne Activities in Engineering Organizations Chapter 4

first issue of proceedings of the 1956 confer- 36 countries. There have also been other spon- ence was a single volume about an inch thick, sors of reports of earthquakes, outside of these whereas our later earthquake engineering organizations IAEE and EERI, that have made world conferences produce several volumes. significant contributions to earthquake engineering. Other publications have been spon- International Association for sored by steel companies, the American Earthquake Engineering (ME) Institute of Steel Construction, and the concrete people through the American Concrete Rinne: As a result of the first two confer- Institute. Also by the Portland Cement Associ- ences-the one in Berkeley to start with [1956], ation and their laboratory in Illinois. and the next one in Japan [1960], the Japanese In all, from the standpoint of correspondence suggested that we establish an International and dissemination of information, I would say Association for Earthquake Engineering (IAEE). we have had a large amount of information They would sponsor the headquarters office and published. We certainly know a lot about assume the expenses of handling that office. earthquakes. I'm not so sure, however, that we They have done that right up to the present, and know so much about proper and adequate have done an excellent job. I was suggested as a design for earthquakes, despite all the papers. vice president of IAEE, and Kyioshi Muto was That's one thing that gives me considerable its first president. Then I became president of concern, because even the most modern- IAEE, serving between the New Zealand con- designed buildings still have to stand the test of ference in 1965 and the Chile conference in a major earthquake, and that's liable to come at 1968. I might add that more and more countries any time. Our experience to date hasn't been all have joined the International Association for that good.5 Earthquake Engineering. I'm trying to remember-the latest was Nationalist China.

Scott: Will you comment a little about the work of the international association-is holding the quadrennial world conferences one of its main purposes? Rinne: Yes, the world conference is the principal purpose of the IAEE. Under Japanese leadership, the IAEE has been very good about publishing books to disseminate information, such as world compilations of codes from various countries. They've come out with those periodically, as well as with seismological bulle- 5. These observations were made several years before the 1994 Northridge earthquake revealed tins. The code compilation from 1988 includes significant damage in many modern steel frame code provisions for earthquake resistance from buildings.u

Chapter 5 Developing a New Design Code

“We wanted to take a fresh approach to developing a code. II

Scoa: You have mentioned the Joint Committee that produced the report called Separate 66, which many regard as something of a landmark. I hope you will discuss the Joint Committee and its work in some detail. But first, could you set the stage by saying a little about your recollections of the development of seismic codes and earthquake engineering design, going back to your early years of practice?

Early Seismic Codes Rime: The Long Beach earthquake occurred in 193 3, and at the time I was employed with Huber and Knapik. We were aware of what that earthquake did to buildings down there. We were designing buildings such as Washington High School in San Francisco and the Caswell Coffee Building, where we did design for lateral forces, as much as 10 percent, which was high for that particular time. For the Caswell Coffee building it worked out rather easily In the case of school buildings, shortly after the Long Beach earthquake [under the Field Act] the first Appendix A for public school buildings came out. There again we were applying Appendix A, as it was called, the earthquake criteria, that the

101 Chapter 5 Connections: The EERI Oral History Series

state stipulated under the Field Act for the Scott: Say a little about why you designed design of public school buildings. Initially, the Caswell Building the way you did. That those were rather modest factors, 8 percent or was in the early days of trying to design for 10 percent at the maximum. It was no big prob- seismic forces. lem [to incorporate those criteria] in the build- Rinne: It was designed after the Long Beach ing configurations that they had at that time. earthquake in 1933, which caused a lot more Scott: Please discuss the Caswell Coffee concern [about seismic design]. The 1933 Building a little more. earthquake was important because there was a fairly large lateral force, greater than wind, and Rinne: Yes. Back in 1934, one of the jobs I it was the first earthquake that had a ground had with Huber and Knapik was on the Caswell accelerograph recording of the motion. The Coffee Building, located on Rincon Hill, San accelerograph recorded a lateral force accelera- Francisco. It is a flat slab building with outside tion maximum of about 3 5 percent of gravity in bearing walls-a formidable building, practi- the ground. That does not mean that the struc- cally windowless. I designed it for lateral forces ture responded to 3 5 percent, but it does mean of 10 percent gravity, and Walter Huber said, that the peak of the short-period motion-the when he found out what I'd done, "That's high-frequency motion-did have that high a okay-that's probably a good factor, but it's ground acceleration. This kind of evidence of more than required by code." He went back to such strong lateral force motion concerned all the architect and convinced the architect that of the structural engineers, even in the absence the building was inherently good for large lat- of codes. Codes got imposed rather quickly eral forces. Designing it for the 10 percent g after that. I'd have to go back to the record for was easy from the design and construction the timing of the codes as to when the codes of standpoint. the 1930s and 1940s came out.

Scott: You say the building was virtually Scott: When you talk about codes, are you windowless. A building like that would proba- talking about local codes, or the Uniform bly have a good deal of inherent strength, Building Code, or both? I recollect comments would it not, that is if it had a decent basic about seismic inclusion in codes somewhere in structure at all? So was a virtually windowless the late '20s or early '30s. I believe the Santa structure with 10 percent for lateral forces con- Barbara earthquake in 1925 aroused a good sidered a pretty substantial design, in terms of deal of interest, and there was a great deal more earthquake resistance? interest after the Long Beach earthquake. Rinne: It was substantial for that time, but Rinne: The first Uniform Building Code not by modern standards, because that kind of (UBC) came out following the Santa Barbara building now goes up as high as 16 percent. But earthquake, and according to "Buzz" Wright, I have no fear about the Caswell Coffee Build- to whom I spoke in March 1988, it was written ing sustaining an earthquake rather readily. by A.W. Earl. Of course, the 1906 earthquake

102 John E. Rinne Developing a New Design Code Chapter 5

did a pretty good job of damaging a large area being practiced in California, and a feeling that of northern California, but San Francisco was San Francisco engineers ought to take a look at very reluctant to do anything about earthquake the matter, independent of what had gone on codes, in spite of all the damage the earthquake before. That was our charge. The Joint Com- did. I'm amazed at how reluctant they were- mittee was made up entirely of practicing engi- but they were. neers, in contrast to people who were analytical academicians. Formation of the Joint Committee Scott: It was set up as a joint committee of Rinne: Finally, because of the influence in the the northern California civil engineers and Los Angeles area and the south generally, the structural engineers. Did SEAONC provide the Uniform Building Code and the Vensano code primary push, or was it also the civil engineers? [in 19481 got to be a bit excessive, in the opinion Rinne: It came from the two organizations. of San Francisco engineers in defining design Both the structural engineers [SEAONC] and lateral forces that were considerably higher than the civil engineers (San Francisco Section, those in other codes. That's one of the concerns ASCE) appointed the Joint Committee in that emphasized the need to get an up-to-date 1948. The Joint Committee's meetings started code in San Francisco, which prompted the for- shortly after it was appointed. We met weekly mation of the Joint Committee. for dinner and a "skull session" following, at We wanted to take a fresh approach to develop- the El Jardin restaurant on California Street ing a code. The codes were quite variable at near Market Street, San Francisco. I remember that time, the 1930s and 1940s. Los Angeles the room so well. was developing a seismic code, but San Fran- cisco didn't have much of a code at all until Criteria and Definitions adoption of the Vensano code in 1948. Rinne: With the help of my associates Ed Scott: You are now referring specifically to Robison and Milton Ludwig, and with the codes that include some earthquake provisions? spectral response curves of Professor Maurice Rinne: Yes, any code that included Biot at Caltech as I mention later, I think I con- earthquake-resistance factors and criteria. The tributed as much as anyone to going in the International Conference of Building Officials direction of defining the design base shear, and (ICBO) had done quite a bit at that time, too, from the base shear, defining what the forces influenced by work of the Seismology Com- were on the structure, and the resulting over- mittee of the statewide association SEAOC. turning moments. I was influenced also by my There was considerable variation in the codes, own understanding, coming from my vibration and San Francisco was in need of a revised course in my M.S. year at Berkeley. code. This is what initiated the formation of We on the Joint Committee were loolung for a the Joint Committee in 1948. It was also the new approach. I think I, and my cohorts Ed awareness of various other codes that were Robison and Milton Ludwig, espoused the

103 Chapter 5 Connections: The EERI Oral History Series

code represented by Separate 66 and later Work of Biot, Robison, Ludwig codes. That was a new idea at the time-as far Rinne: Anyway, we came up with the criteria as codes were concerned-the direction it took, that are contained in Separate 66, as a result of and still takes, and the method of defining the many weekly meetings of the committee. We seismic forces to be used in the design of build- wrestled through this effort and were making ings, primarily, with some criteria also included use of work done by Maurice A. Biot, a profes- for "other structures." sor of mathematics at Caltech. Biot worked on Scott: You are referring to the direction a theory of elastic systems vibrating, with an taken by the Joint Committee's deliberations? application to earthquake-resistant buildings. That was his first work, in 1933,7 and then he Rinne: Yes, the path taken toward defining went on to analyze a number of others and the seismic forces. The Joint Committee came up with this idea of a spectral response-a worked on a definition of earthquake- vibration response of the structure to the earth- resistance criteria, based fundamentally on quake. determining a design base shear, in contrast to specifying forces directly. Since the earthquake Scott: Biot was developing a theoretical way forces come into a structure through the to help understand how a building vibrates in ground, it was logical to go from the ground response to earthquake forces? up. It was also consistent with vibration theory. Rinne: Yes, the way a building vibrates in Scott: It was a system for dealing with lateral response to the ground motion. Biot did that forces? early work in 1933, and more work later to Rinne: It was more a system for defining the generate both undamped and damped spectral forces. From the base shear you eventually got responses of simple one-mass structures. It to the forces, and from the forces to the shears wasn't until 1948-1950 that Ed Robison did his and the moments, to provide your design crite- work, confirming Biot's type of work and com- ria. The earthquake has its input from the ing up with spectral responses that were com- ground up, and we were starting to get ground parable. Also there was work by Milton motion criteria. The 1940 El Centro earth- Ludwig. Through electrical analogies-Lud- quake record has been used extensively in anal- wig was an electrical engineer-he provided yses. We got the first strong ground motion this idea of equivalent one-mass systems to rep- record in Long Beach in 1933. But the El Cen- resent the fundamental second, third modes in tro record was a more recent, clearer, and more both a flexural-type structure and a shear-type complete record, that is often quoted and used. structure. This also came out of Ed Robison's Of course we have had many other records work in analyzing the many modes (vibration since then. 7. Biot, Maurice A,, "Theory of Elastic Systems Vibrating Under Transient Impulse with an Ap- plication to Earthquake-Proof Buildings," Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 10, No. 2, February 1933.

104 John E. Rinne Developing a New Design Code Chapter 5

shapes) in which a multistory (hence In 1948-1950, before the powerful computers multi-mass) building could vibrate, and each became available, Ed Robison used logarithms mode could be represented by a one-mass sys- to analyze the vibration characteristics of a tem plus a vibration shape. 15-mass building, and his work was very helpful in visualizing the multi-mode action of a Biot published the first spectral response of sin- vibrating structure. It established a principle gle degree of freedom (SDF) structures to stated in current publications that the total earthquake ground motion-the so-called mass of a building (or other structure) can be Duhamel equation-published in the Bulletin assigned to the translational modes in which it of the Seismological Society of America, as I can vibrate under the impetus of the ground recall, around 1949 or a little earlier [it was motion. Ed made the extended calculation by 19411. This came out in the early stages of the longhand, using seven-place logarithms. He Joint Committee's deliberations, and preceded developed a matrix that indicated the distribu- Ed Robison's work.* tion of the building weight into the first 12 of 15 modes that it could vibrate in, indicating Edward C. Robison was a classmate of mine at that the sum of these modal weights added up U.C. Berkeley, graduating in 193 1. Ed worked to the weights of each story, and in total added with the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey and up to the total weight of the building. This was primarily responsible for the design of the was something we were saying was true at the first strong motion accelerograph, which was time we did Separate 66. Ed's work was very constructed and set up in time to record the helpful to us. Long Beach earthquake of 1933. The instru- In his calculations, Ed used the Alexander ment is still a museum piece on display at major Building analysis, which had been worked on technical meetings to show what they had to do by John Blume and Harry Hesselmeyer as a in those days to get a record. That should have master's thesis at Stanford in the mid-1930s. been credited to the work of Ed Robison, who was working in the Coast and Geodetic Survey 9. Both the published record and the recollection of Ralph S. McLean, who worked with Robison at the time.' prior to the Long Beach earthquake, suggest that Robison did not design the instrument. 8. Two of Biot's publications from the early 1940s While it appears that Robison definitely had a were footnoted in the Separate 66 report: 1.) Bi- role in the development and assembly of the re- ot, Maurice A., "AMechanical Analyzer for the corders that were installed before the Long Prediction of Earthquake Stresses, SSA Bulletin, Beach earthquake, the actual designer evidently Vol. 31, No. 2, April 1941. The method was de- was Frank Wenner of the Bureau of Standards, veloped at Caltech in 1932 [Biot, 19331, and in see N.H. Heck, H.E. McComb, and F.P. Ulrich, Biot's words, was an attempt to draw "a curve "Strong Motion Program and Tiltmeters," in representing some kind of harmonic analysis of Earthquake Investigations in California: 1934- an earthquake, where the acceleration intensity 1935, Coast and Geodetic Survey, Publication is plotted as a function of frequency." 2.) M.A. No. 201, pp. 5, 7, 1936. Oral history interviews Biot, "Analytical and Experimental Methods in were conducted with McLean in 1990-1991, and Engineering Seismology," Transactions,Vol. an exchange of correspondence in 1995 dealt 108, ASCE 1943. specifically with the instrument-design question.

105 Chapter 5 Connections: The EERI Oral History Series

Based on rigidity, weights, and foundation flex- Design Requirements and ibility, Blume and Hesselmeyer calculated and Observations of Performance reconciled the 1.2 5 second measured funda- Rinne: We made the distinction that we were mental period of the building with the calcu- using Biot's work qualitatively. To translate lated period." Biot's data to quantitative design factors for lat- The late Milton Ludwig of Chevron, a eral forces, we felt it was important that we co-worker of mine, also developed the concept make comparisons or make observations of for uniform "rods," in shear, and, separately, damaged and nondamaged buildings in earth- moment types of deflections. Ludwig contrib- quakes. Henry Degenkolb was one of the fore- uted much to the earthquake analysis method most of the people who has observed the that the Joint Committee put forward in performances of buildings in earthquakes, and Separate 66. It was the first time the earthquake he compared these [observations] with what design approach used the response to ground they were calculated to be able to resist. Inci- motion as a base shear-as it should be, since dentally, some of the buildings that stood up the base is where the vibration originates- well in the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco, rather than defining the lateral forces on the even by generous allowances, would hardly have structure's masses empirically as forces acting withstood 2 percent g as a lateral force factor. at the floor levels of the building. Where we're at now is something else again, up Scott: So all three of them contributed to to 16.7 percent g for low, rigid buildings. those developments, starting with Biot and the Scoff: You are referring to buildings that concept of spectral response? actually stood up in the 1906 earthquake? Rinne: That is correct. Rinne: Yes, like the Flood Building. Scott: But reasoning by conventional design theory, they should not have stood up to the lateral forces of the earthquake as well as they did? Rinne: Yes, they should have sustained a lot 10. The 1950 Robison material was published by more damage than they actually did. On the EERI. See John A. Blume and John E. Rinne, other hand, in more recent years we've eds., "Vibration Characteristics and Earthquake Forces in a Fifteen Story Building-An Abridg- designed structures to much more rigorous ment of An Original Paper by Edward C. Robi- requirements, as related to forces, and have son, 1950," Earthquake Spectra. Vol. 5, No. 4, EERI, November, 1989. The brief biographical found ourselves in a jackpot because in many sketch of Robison included in the Spectra article cases the [more modern] buildings have not also alludes to the Long Beach accelerograph performed very well, for various reasons. This design and Robison's role: "He, apparently, was responsible for the design-at least the mathe- is not to say that some old buildings are not matics of the design-of the strong motion ac- bad-there are bad old buildings. In some of celerograph that recorded the first strong motion record in Long Beach, California, in the developing countries, where they are very 193 3. " limited in the materials available and the mate-

106 John E. Rinne Developing a New Design Code Chapter 5

rials have obviously been very, very poor, they Rinne: Yes, the El Centro ground motion, had serious collapses, such as earlier in Nicara- for example. gua, China, and Russia, and in San Salvador more recently. Code and Response Spectra Disparities Emphasis on Practical Design Criteria Scott: Would you comment on the implica- tions of the wide disparity between the code Rinne: As I say, because the Separate 66 Com- figures and the theoretical response spectra? mittee was a group of practicing engineers, we put heavy emphasis on what practical design Rinne: Part of the difference of analytical criteria should be. And that established a range spectral response is based on 5 percent damp- of coefficients for the base shear, which varied ing, which is a convenient mathematical device. from the 2 percent up to 6 percent, with the Also, of course, the objective of earthquake maximum of 6 percent for buildings of resistance is fundamentally to save lives, and 0.25-second fundamental period, and the mini- secondarily to avoid major damage. In any case, mum of 2 percent applying to buildings with I do not believe that we are in a position to ana- fundamental periods of 0.7 of a second or lyze buildings to the extent of assuring-except longer. in very rare cases-that there will be absolutely no damage at all under any circumstances. The Scott: So the requirement related to the fun- imposition of very conservative criteria cer- damental vibration period of the structure. tainly is justified for nuclear power plants, but Rinne: Yes, that was the result of the work of generally, I think that would be asking too the committee. A.K. Chopra’s Dynamics of much. We can, however, provide buildings that Strzlctures: A Primer, published by EERI in have the basic stability required for earthquake-resistance, although receiving per- 1981,l1 for example, on page 115, indicates a wide disparity between the theoretical response haps some damage. spectrum and the code-related spectra. It is this An earthquake does not last forever. Earth- disparity that is significant in the code design quakes are not generally as long as the Alaska criteria for earthquake resistance. These spec- earthquake, which is reported to have lasted tra, incidentally, are based on 5 percent damp- maybe 4 minutes. And duration significantly ing, which is probably reasonable. influences damage to many kinds of structures. The extent to which they respond in a funda- Scott: That is for spectral response analysis, mental mode, and the extent to which they based on information on motion in an actual respond in a higher mode, is indicated by the earthquake? The graph compares actual response curve. In other words, the fundamen- ground motion with the code provisions? tal period may be out where the response coef- 11. Chopra, hi1K., Dynamics ofstructures: A ficient is well below peak, but applied to a Pyimer, EERI, 198 1. major proportion of the total weight of the

107 Chapter 5 Connections: The EERl Oral History Series

structure. The second and perhaps third modes might be at the peak spectral response, but multiplied by the significantly lower weights assigned to higher modes.

108 Chapter 6 Separate 66 Report

"1 don't even remember how I became chairman, but I didl and it was kind of interesting. I1

Scott: Say something about the committee that produced the Separate 66 report. How was it set up, how were the members selected, and how did you work with it as chairman? What were you trying to accomplish and how did you go about reaching a consensus? How did the process work? Rinne: It was surprisingly good. There was very little resistance to taking on some rather drastic changes in concept, the result of my study of the work of Biot, Robison, Ludwig, and others.

Scott: Had you done that work-your study of Biot and others-quite a bit earlier, perhaps over a number of years, or did you concentrate on it at the time, after you knew you would be doing a lot on the Separate 66? Rinne: I was doing it largely as a result of interest I already had prior to the formation of the committee. But it was not until we got into the committee work that I suggested we might use the concept advocated or suggested by Biot, and others too. Surprisingly enough, the Joint Committee liked the thought of taking a fresh look at it, without any commitment.

The committee was appointed by the two societies, as noted earlier. I do not remember just how they arrived at who was going to be on it, and who was to be chairman. As a matter of

109 Chapter 6 Connections: The EERl Oral History Series

a moment type deflection

average deflection, approximates a straight line* *This has been confirmed approximately by numerous multi-accelerograph records in earthquakes at different levels in the buildings so instrumented

a shear type deflection The distribution of a base shear up the building is proportional to the linear assumptions of building deflection, and the weight at any specific level - usually the weight at and ajacent to each floor level I,

Figure A fact, I don't even remember how I became the blackboard, and putting that formula on chairman, but I did, and it was kind of interest- the board. The formula continues in ing. The fact that we were given a complete force-equivalent code provisions to this day. free rein to take a completely independent look Measurements of actual accelerations in multi- at the earthquake code in light of the concepts story buildings during earthquakes in years fol- and technology available at the time, was in lowing the Joint Committee report do a good itself interesting. job of confirming the reasonableness of the triangular distributions formula. Shear Distribution Scott: You say that there was surprisingly lit- Rinne: I remember distinctly the evening tle resistance to the concept of defining base when we were talking about how we should shear, and the distribution of the base shear on distribute the shear vertically. I came up with the structure as design lateral forces? the figure [Figure A] here in the Separate 66. This shows that under circumstances of shear, Rinne: Yes. At that time I remember my say- or an average between a shear and a ing I would have had a minimum of 2 percent, moment-type of building (a pretty high build- and a maximum of 8 percent rather than a ma- ing), the distribution would be pretty much a imum of 6 percent. But some committee mem- straight line, triangular. That brought us to the bers were willing to go from a 2 percent triangular distribution. I remember going to minimum to a 4 percent maximum. So we com-

110 John E. Rinne Separate 66 Report Chapter 6

promised at 2 percent to 6 percent, as the lat- ble for particular ground motions applied to eral force coefficient range for the base shear. particular structures, these solutions are too involved and of too limited significance to be of Scott: You say that you yourself would have direct practical value to the structural engineer. gone for the more conservative figures, a range The more rigorous methods, however, should of from 2 percent to 8 percent? be encouraged to guide their thinking toward Rinne: Yes, because of the nature of spectral less rigorous but more practical methods." responses that were available back then, even in Those look like my words. It sounds like me. Biot's time. Actually, we are now much higher As it is now, we are quite capable of making [more conservative] than that, in some respects. elaborate analyses if someone will pay the With the passage of time and technology devel- costs-in time and dollars. Computers have opments, code provisions have been changed to helped enormously in making complicated higher factors, rather than to lower factors. analyses practical. Most offices now use them. Offsetting the higher base shears and forces to a significant amount has been the use of higher Scott: How long did the work on Separate strength materials: structural steel, reinforcing 66 take? steel, and concrete. Also modular analysis, per- Rinne: We actually met for a couple of years mitted readily with the aid of computers and before we got to writing the report. I think we computer programs, has provided better analy- had also actually submitted our report earlier ses, as the current codes now recognize. than 1951, as we probably reported to our two local associations in 1950, but I do not recall Report Preparation and Publication the exact dates. Then it took 6 months to a year Scott: How long did it take for the commit- just to get it published. The Joint Committee tee to arrive at this consensus? report and recommendations were originally published in the April, 195 1 Proceedings-Sep- Rinne: In one evening at the El Jardin we arate No. 66, and since then have frequently concluded the base shear range [after several been referred to simply as "Separate 66." It was months of consideration]. It escapes me also published in 1952, complete with discus- entirely as to who actually did the writing of sions, in volume 117 of the Transactions of the the report. I think I did as much as anybody, American Society of Civil Engineers." In but I do not remember which parts I wrote, and 1953, the Joint Committee received the ASCE which I did not. I'm certainly responsible for a Moisseiff Award for its report. good part of it. The chairman frequently gets that job. 12. Anderson, Arthur W., John A. Blume, et al., An interesting aside here [Rinne quotes from "Lateral Forces of Earthquake and Wind," Sep- arate 66, Journal of the Structural Division, Pro- Sepmate 64: "The behavior of structures in ceedings of the American Society of Civil earthquakes has generally been recognized as a Engineers, ASCE, New York, NY,195 1. (Also "Lateral Forces of Earthquake and Wind," dynamic vibration phenomenon of a transient Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engi- nature. Although rigorous solutions are possi- neers, Vol. 117. ASCE, New York, NY, 1952.)

111 Chapter 6 Connections: The EERl Oral History Series

Acceptance- and Use overturning moment of prescribed forces, which first made its appearance in the early Scott: Could you talk a little about how you SEAOC code. To a significant extent the hoped the report would be used, and how it was J-factor effect is reintroduced by the acceptance actually used, especially in the first years after- of modular analysis and combining modular wards. How influential was it? I guess you were responses by root-sum-square additions. Over- trying to change both the codes and the prac- turning moment is slightly reduced in buildings tice of the profession. over about 12 stories designed by so-called Rinne: The acceptance of this by the societ- static equivalent forces. The National Earth- ies was one thing. But its actual use as a code by quake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP), any of the political organizations-cities or of the Building Seismic Safety Council, says whatever-came somewhat later and in modi- that additionally the foundation overturning fied form. Following this, there was the Seis- moment can be reduced 10 percent. That is the mology Committee of the Structural Engineers first time I've seen that kind of reduction. In Association of California, of which I was a buildings taller than 12 stories, moments are member for many years. That committee slightly reduced down to the foundation. The started with this [Separate 64 as a basis. They foundation overturning moment can be further modified the Joint Committee code somewhat, reduced by this 10 percent. and also sponsored its recommendations to some extent with the ICBO and the Uniform On Overturning: A Little Optimistic Building Code, and also with the municipalities for use in local codes. I'm not familiar with Rinne: I think I was basically a little optimis- exactly what San Francisco has now as a code. tic in early SEAOC work in our definition of I've not had occasion to do any design in San the J-factor. But at the same time, I have a feel- Francisco, and I do not have their current code. ing that a large part of the throwing out of the I know what the Uniform Building Code looks J-factor was due to the inadequacy of concept like, and it is an adaptation of Separate 66 into of the buildings-which caused extremely high more modern conservative formats, adopting shears and overturning moments in columns modular analyses, and resulting from analyses (especially corner columns), inadequate design made of responses to particular earthquakes of the columns, and inadequate ability of col- and observations in earthquakes. umns to take high compression without shear failures, especially in concrete. That's been Scott: Observations in earthquakes like indicated by a need for much more rigorous Bakersfield, San Fernando, and Alaska? stirrups in reinforced concrete columns than Rinne: Those, plus earthquakes in foreign has been the practice before; also more utiliza- lands including Mexico [1985], Nicaragua tion of spiral reinforcement. Thoroughly con- [1972], China [1976], etc. Well, things have fining the concrete inside the spiral is much been done to eliminate what we called a more effective than stirrups. At least as indi- J-factor-a reduction factor applied to the cated by the Olive View Hospital [San Fer-

112 John E. Rinne Separate 66 Report Chapter 6

nando, California], the spiral concept is a very talked about it a number of times. Was it a fea- good concept for confining concrete so that it ture of Separate 66? does not fall out when shaken by an earth- Rinne: No. Separate 66 merely states that quake, even if it may crack. Of course it does overturning moment be constant below 10 sto- not do much for the concrete that is outside the ries from the top of higher rise buildings. This spirals. That falls off in nothing flat. was a bit optimistic. Scott: You also mentioned stirrups. What Scott: Since Separate 66 was written, there no are they and how do they work? doubt have been quite a few changes in seismic Rinne: Yes. Stirrups are spaced at intervals in code criteria generally accepted in California? the upper column and in beams and girders. Rinne: Yes, there have been important They reinforce for shear stress in concrete col- changes-and almost without exception they umns-really for tension stress associated with have been toward more conservative code cri- shear in beams and girders. But at the same teria. Also in recognizing our abilities with the time they're spaced so far apart that concrete modern computers to make more elaborate can fall out, causing column collapse modal analyses, including response in the fun- Scott. Stirrups are less effective? damental mode and higher modes as needed. Rinne: Yes. The spiral is much more effec- The J-factor, answering your question, was a tive, because it typically has a spacing of say 2 factor reducing the overturning moment from inches, and it retains the concrete intact, that resulting from assigning all of the lateral whereas if you have stirrups spaced at 8 inches, force to the fundamental mode (or triangular the concrete can fail, fall out and ultimately distribution) to account for the distribution to cause column collapse. So I think columns, fundamental plus higher modes. Higher modes such as those that are typical in the first story of add little to overturning in the lower stories. reinforced concrete buildings, should either Scott: When you say more conservative, you have spiral reinforcement, or else should have mean higher values? stirrups spaced in the same order of magnitude, spaced 2 to 3 inches apart, all the way up the Rinne: Higher values in general, yes. column. After you get above the first story, it Scott: As I understand it, Separate 66 got might be less, but I'm not sure of that. It picked up in the Uniform Building Code, depends on what other lateral-force resistances although with modification. you have. Rinne: Yes, with conservative modifications.

J-Factor Scott: Was this done fairly soon? Scott: Going back to Separate 66-was the Rinne: No, it took a long time. They were J-factor something that was put in Separate 66 not in any big hurry. Their procedures were for the first time? I've never fully understood changing, and that takes a while. You just do the J-factor, although Henry Degenkolb has not do it hurriedly.

113 Chapter 6 Connections: The EERI Oral History Series.

Back to the question about the J-factor being in Scott: There seems to be a little discussion the Separate 66. It is not, but it was included in here of problems they have had dealing with item 8, p. 746 of the 1952 ASCE Transactions overturning, the changes in the J-factor. for future study: "establishment of design crite- Rinne: They are saying that it was not until ria for the overturning effects in earthquakes 1948 that San Francisco had anything more based on dynamic considerations." It must have stringent than the Riley Act in its code. The been in later work that the J-factor itself turned table of variable coefficients was adopted, with up, including the work in establishing the Blue a maximum value for one story of 8 percent and Books, the recommendations of the Structural minimum value for 3 0 stories of 3.7 percent. Engineers Association of California. Incidentally, that has variations for soil conditions. These were applied to design vertical Scott: But it was not referred to in loads, but those are coefficients that Harry Separate 66? Vensano-San Francisco's director of public Rinne: No, in Separate 66 it was not referred works-was basically responsible for, and he to as a J-factor. personally was responsible for San Francisco adopting that particular code. That action of Scott: You mentioned the SEAOC Blue Harry's, he was a forthright guy, he was a little Book. Say something about the relationship hard-nosed too, but his one-handedness between the two reports-was Separate 66 a prompted the formation in 1948 of the Joint forerunner of the Blue Book? Committee. Rinne: Yes, Separate 66 was a forerunner of In 1956 San Francisco adopted a variation of the work of the SEAOC Seismology Commit- the recommendations of the Joint Committee, tee. There has now been a whole series of Blue in which the maximum [design coefficient] was Book editions. I have the original ones, but I 7.5 percent and minimum was 3.5 percent. think I have them in boxes somewhere. The That isn't an awful lot different from Harry one I have here is dated 1967.13There is some Vensano's earlier figures of 8 percent and 3.7 history in here in the Blue Book, however, that percent. So he did reduce it a little bit, but that is significant: the history of earthquake codes in was 1956. California. These are the recommendations and commentary of the Seismology Committee of Scott: Reading between the lines suggests to me that it was a remarkable accomplishment on the Structural Engineers Association of Califor- Harry Vensano's part to get San Francisco to nia. In this 1967 edition they have C = .05 over do that when he did back in 1948. the cube root of T, the fundamental period, to establish the design base shear by V = CW. Rinne: Yes, he was the responsible city offi- cial. This is the 1973 edition of the Blue Book, 13. Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and and there is a rather brief history here-it is Commentary, SEAOC Seismology Committee, Sacramento, CA. 1st edition, 1959; published something that you should have available. You periodically. can see that the code has developed through

114 John E. Rinne Separate 66 Report Chapter 6

the years. It would be interesting to take all of Scott: The first recommendation empha- them and see the changes in those fundamental sized the importance of ground motion things, of defining the maximum-minimum records, and their use in seismic code drafting? values of C, the formula for C, the formula or Rinne: Yes, ground motions, and the fact that equivalent for J. the committee talked about the accelerations. All I'm saying is that work has been done on Hindsight Critique of Separate 66 this, and it is being accommodated in the codes Recornmenda tions in one way or another. A little later, in going through the other recommendations, we'll dis- Rinne: The report of the Joint Committee cuss some other aspects of the response ques- included a number of recommendations for tion. Nowadays we have arrays of strong future studies. I would like now to go over motion earthquake instrumentation-some on these, to see how far we have progressed in the the ground, some in buildings and other struc- last 40 years [1948-19881, in expanding our tures. This is giving us a lot of information that knowledge and understanding of ground we did not have when the 195 1Joint Commit- motions and earthquake effects, and also to tee report was written. Back then we were using indicate the need for improvements, over and the work that Professor Biot did at Caltech, above what was recommended in the text of and also work that Ed Robison and Milt Lud- Separate 66. The report made eleven recom- wig did at that time. So we recognized the need mendations for future studies. I will review for more data related to earthquake motions. each recommendation individually, in Scott: Back in those days did you consider sequence. the lack of hard, concrete information on earthquake ground motion to have been a Number 1: More Ground Motion Records major gap in knowledge? Rinne: Recommendation Number 1 pointed Rinne: Yes. Since earthquakes work from the to the need for more extensive and active ground up, it is logical that there is a strong records of ground motions. This objective has need to understand the nature of ground been accomplished to a large extent, and has motion in an earthquake, The motion isn't introduced the ground motion considerations always the same, obviously-one earthquake into codes in various ways. One is as an isn't exactly like another earthquake, particu- S-factor for soils (which is also indicated in larly because of differences due to location and Recommendation Number 4). Ground motion seismicity. Nevertheless, there are some simi- is also a factor in a ratio-a response ratio to larities, and these are reflected in analyses made maximum ground acceleration. This has been of the ground motion, as simplified structures accomplished in the latest code proposals, one would respond to it. This is the way it enters being the tentative SEAOC 1987 code, and the into our consideration today-as an input factor other being the NEHRP 1986 code. to establish what we're calling "design spectra."

115 Chapter 6 Connections: The EERl Oral History Series

Number 2: Response Curves of estimating period admittedly were very inaccu- One-Mass Systems rate, but at the same time were very conserva- Rinne: Number 2 urged that we obtain addi- tive. Because the period is an important tional response information for one-mass sys- function (actually the abscissa) for determining tems-that is what these response curves are. the response, any inaccuracy might shift your In the intervening years, a large amount of design one way or the other rather importantly. work has been done for one-mass systems, It happens that if the period estimate is on the including the effects of damping and inelastic low side, you design for higher lateral forces response. Again, this relates very closely to than if you had a more accurate and higher ground motion. The establishment of these assessment of period, and proceeded down the spectra is one of the ways, with the aid of com- curve to a lesser force on the structure's base puters, of calculating the response of real struc- shear. Today there are recognized methods of tures to ground motions. calculating the period more accurately. The problem, really, is to be able to calculate before Scott: You said "one-mass'' systems? you complete the structural design. The Rinne: Yes. The response curves are for the designer can check the period calculation after responses of a single-mass system of varying completing the design. In earlier stages it's period. That's what a response curve is. One going to be something of an approximation, problem that comes up relative to codes in this because you do not know exactly what the regard is, again, the fact that no two earth- structure is going to be. quakes are exactly the same. Also, to a considerable extent, the responses of structures Number 4: Eflects of Soil Conditions depend upon distance from the fault line. Rinne: Recommendation Number 4 relates Earthquake motion close to the fault line to some of the conditions I noted earlier in includes a high degree of high-frequency, talking about ground motion. The S-factor was high-intensity ground motion. The high- used in some of the earlier codes, including frequency motion is damped out, however, as UBC. Generally higher amplitudes of ground you proceed away from the fault line, whereas motion are expected in weaker soil. A founda- the lower-frequency, longer-period vibrations tion on hard rock would have several character- can travel much farther, and in fact become a istics, one being a lesser ground motion. Thus very definite hazard to taller structures, as you should have less-severe motion of the experienced in the Alaska earthquake of 1964. ground in hard rock. On the other hand, there is another aspect of soil conditions in which the Number 3: Building Vibration Periods soil-structure interaction has come into play in Rinne: Recommendation Number 3 was for a recent years. more complete examination of the periods of That involves flexibility of the soils. The over- vibration of buildings, and of factors affecting turning effect in an earthquake causes a rota- such periods. The criteria in Separate 66 for tion at the base of a building in softer soils. In

116 John E. Rinne Separate 66 Report Chapter 6

some cases this can actually improve the That was taken into consideration as early as response of the structure, because it lengthens some of the UBC codes, based upon work the period and gets it farther out on the largely done by the Structural Engineers Asso- response curve. So despite softer soils having ciation of California. This has been done in the larger amplitudes of motion, they also provide UBC code, for example, by adding a certain this kind of flexibility, which is not usually taken percentage of the base shear as a lateral force at into account. In codes it is frequently specified the top, and distributing the remainder of the that the period calculation shall be made with base shear in a triangular fashion, represented the base being considered fixed or inflexible. by the formulas which have appeared in Separate 66, and also in later codes. Number 5: Model and Shaking- Table Studies Rinne: Recommendation Number 5 urged Number 7:Allowable Stress Increasesfor that additional model and shaking-table studies Short-term Loading be done. We have gone a considerable distance Rinne: Recommendation Number 7 was for in that, with the fairly large models and shaking further study of allowable increases in working tables now available, including the University stresses for short-time lateral loading combined of California facility in Richmond. These with normal vertical loading, and noting the studies have not only added to our under- then-current practice of a 3 3 percent increase. standing of the responses of structures, but also So far there has not been any great change in have corroborated the analytical findings. In this, except for the fact that we are using an addition a lot of progress has been made in entirely different philosophy in design from just structural detail analysis and in structural a simple 3 3 percent increase on elastic allow- materials performance. able stresses. In other words, we are now using load factors, combined with higher ultimate Number 6: Lateral Force Design Criteria strength and yield strength, that are somewhat different. In essence we agreed that for the Rinne: Recommendation Number 6 calls for earthquake contingency we should design using a study of the rigidity criteria for the distribu- stresses somewhat higher than the normal tion of design lateral forces of various types of stresses used with normally applied loads. structures. We have also progressed in this field. I recall that the Japanese, who commented, and also Caltech people who discussed Number 8: Design Criteria for Ovemrning Separate 66, were somewhat critical of our Rinne: Recommendation Number 8 is for so-called "triangular" distribution of the base the establishment of design criteria for over- shear. The reason they were critical was that turning effects based on dynamic consider- they felt in very tall structures we get more ations. We have come full circle on that. In motion or even higher-mode motion, which Separate 66, as I remember, we considered the would increase the lateral forces in the top sto- overturning moment only for the top 10 stories of a building. ries, or the top 120 feet of other structures, and

117 Chapter 6 Connections: The EERl Oral History Series

assumed that the overturning moment would Scott: For clarification, when you say 15 be constant below that. mass, is that equivalent to 15 stories? Since we are now dealing with buildings that Rinne: Yes, 15 stories above street level floor. are 40, SO, 60, or 100 stories high, those criteria In the calculation it has been considered are no longer very valid. And at the same time 15 masses, second floor to roof inclusive. I was we were doing more involved dynamic modal going to say that in this particular building, the calculations, which indicate that the overturn- response in the fundamental mode involved ing moment is not solely dependent upon the about 75 percent of the mass, and about 20 per- shear (which is attributable to the fundamental cent responded to the second mode, 5 percent to the third mode, and negligible amounts in mode of vibration), but that other modes come modes above that. The overturning effect even in that have a lesser effect on the overturning of the second mode was very small. Conse- effect. In the early stage of the SEAOC criteria, quently, in effect you had the equivalent of the we had a J-factor which was too low as defined J-factor of 68 percent for that particular build- by J = 0.5/T2/3, where T is the fundamental ing. There is still some question as to what that mode period.I4 factor should be, but in the dynamic analyses The net result was that the UBC and SEAOC that we can now make, with the aid of comput- both eliminated the J-factor entirely, requiring ers and the response data available, it turns out the application of the full set of lateral forces that some reduction in the overturning applied in triangular distribution down to the moment definitely is in order, especially in foundation. In more recent years there have taller structures. been some steps toward decreasing the over- Scott: The inclusion of the J-factor, as well turning moment and that has been somewhat as its value if included, relate to whether you arbitrary also, as it is in the NEHRP code of reduce the projected overturning moment, and 1986. But in the NEHRP code for dynamic if so by how much? modal design, proper assignment of lateral force is given to both the fundamental mode and the Rinne: That's right, the J-factor is a multiply- higher modes, in accordance with portions of ing factor-that generally is less than unity. the mass of the structure that respond in each particular mode. In analyzing the 15-mass build- Number 9: Cataloging Design ing that Ed Robison worked on, the J-factor Data om Buildings equivalent obtained by combining modal spec- Rinne: Recommendation Number 9 merely tral responses by root-sum-square is 0.686, calls for the cataloging of buildings or struc-

compared with J = 0.43 1 by the J = 0.5/T2/3 I tures being designed for seismic forces, collecting basic data so that in the event of a major 14. Rinne, John E., "Design Criteria for Shear and earthquake, early reports of damage and its Overturning Moment," Proceedings, Second World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, relationship to design and codes can be com- Vol. 111, 1960. piled. With the advent of electronic instru-

118 John E. Rinne Separate 66 Report Chapter 6

ments that are relatively cheap and portable, sidered to be different than those in many there has been a lot of instrumentation of other parts of the country, but then we do not buildings and structures. In fact, there are have hurricanes. requirements to put strong motion instruments Scott: Are you saying that we have a lesser on the roof level, the foundation level, and force for wind stipulated in California than intermediate levels, in taller structures. elsewhere? After an earthquake, we are in a position to Rinne: For wind, yes. acquire a lot of information on what the forces were in the building, the actual forces felt dur- Number 11: Earthquake Efects on Bridges ing the earthquake. The accelerations are actually what you measure, and relate that to what Rinne: Recommendation Number 11 was design criteria were used. Many such records for studies of earthquake effects on bridges. pretty well confirm the triangular distribution Bridges were not included in Separate 66, of forces up the height of multistory buildings. which was devoted entirely to buildings. We dealt with minimum earthquake forces for Scott: After each earthquake we now get a buildings, and bridges are really a separate lot more data on the motion. But I wonder topic. They are not subject to building codes. whether buildings are being cataloged with Bridges are related to highways, and we have respect to their design criteria. little impact on what their criteria are. Rinne: I have not seen anything actually done I do not even know what criteria they are cur- on cataloging, except perhaps in design engi- rently using for bridges, but I can fully appreci- neers' offices, done because they would want to ate that the kind of criteria used for bridges know what happened to their buildings-how should recognize isolated foundations, in con- they performed in an earthquake. trast to building foundations, which are normally tied together, so that the building as a Number 10: Wind Eflects on Low Buildings whole has to move. In a building, one foundation should not move differently laterally than Rinne: Recommendation Number 10 is for another foundation. In the past, that kind of further study of wind effects on low buildings. movement has caused considerable damage in Normally, we considered wind and earthquake bridges. Bridge studies have been made, but in together. Separate 66 was devoted almost exclu- California at least, this has not been done by sively to earthquake forces, and just mentioned SEAOC. wind incidentally because wind is the other lateral force that we have to consider in design. Considering wind and earthquake forces jointly Significant Progress Since is probably in order. What has happened Rinne: That has fairly well covered the regarding wind effects on low buildings is that Separate 66 recommendations for future stud- we have a lesser wind force compared to earth- ies. To sum up, we have made very significant quake forces. California conditions were con- progress in the application of seismic design

119 Chapter 6 Connections: The EERI Oral History Series

knowledge in the intervening years from 19.5 1 assume that these were 1. Now in California 2 to the present. Now, before going on to the would be 1. criticisms of Separate 66 published in the Trans- The factor I relates to the importance of the actions, I would like to discuss this graph of structure, which might increase the lateral design spectra, the progress we have made, and force from what is indicated here. K is a factor the direction in which we have been moving that does not apply to a dynamic modal analy- (see Figure B, Code Modal Design Spectra). sis, but does apply to the UBC type of design. Scott: These are code modal design spectra K is a factor that is anywhere from 1.33 on the curves that you have drawn on this graph high side to 0.67 on the low side. So, using K = [referring to Figure B]. 1 here is merely for comparative purposes. Rinne: Yes. Through the years we have moved Codes prior to the dynamic criteria alternatives to higher force factors, from the time of the are all based upon defining the base shear and &ley Act, represented by the line near the bot- establishing the "equivalent static forces" on tom of the graph. This next curve was the Joint the structure as a whole by distribution of the Committee's Separate 66 recommendation. base shear. When spectra are used for dynamic Here we have the SEAOC code from 19.59 to analysis, they are applied to only a portion of 1973-there have been big changes for a num- the structural weight assigned to each signifi- ber of years. And here are the spectra for hard cant mode. The modal responses are added in rock foundation conditions, by SEAOC. This some such fashion as the square root of the sum one by NEHRP is also for good soil conditions. of the modal response squares. For example, if You can see that even currently there are still you had a 1.2.5-second period structure, and some differences of opinion. But the spectra you had designed by NEHRP spectrum, the curves do indicate increasingly more demanding factor here is 0.07 applied as the first mode, criteria as we learn from earthquakes. and the second mode period is let's say 0.5 of a second and its response up here would be 0.13 5. First of all, this 0.07 would be applied to Substantial Later Changes 7.5 percent of the weight of the building, and Scott: Substantial changes appear to have this 0.13 5 would be applied to 2 5 percent of the been made over the years. weight of the building. Thus, while the factors Rinne: Yes, there have been very substantial are higher, they are applied to lesser weight. changes. I made this graph for comparative So much for that. I am getting into technical purposes only. For this purpose I've assumed a details that I shouldn't be getting into. But the certain factor that enters into some of the codes important thing to realize is that we have that are not 1, but may be less than or more increased the [design criteria for] response of than 1, are not incorporated in this. The Joint structures, especially in the shorter period. Committee code did not have any factors called When we get to the longer periods, propor- 2, I, K, nor did it relate to ground motion S tionately they seem to be getting closer factors at all. So, in making this comparison I together.

120 John E. Rinne Separate 66 Report Chapter 6

Figure 6

121 Chapter 6 Connections: The EERI Oral History Series

Modes of Vibration weight of the building to the first two modes, Scott: When you talk about the different the modal weights being considered for design modes, are you referring to the different natu- are increased from 75 percendl'l percent of ral modes and frequencies in which a multi- the total weight, to 81 percendl9 percent. mass structure is capable of vibration modes? Scott: Do you want to say anything about Rinne: Yes. A fixed base and a fundamental the other curves shown here? vibration. When you talk about the second Rinne: I do not want to generalize my state- mode, the vibration has some wriggle in it- ments, because this is applied to one particular and the period might be 0.5 of a second, if it's a building. What I might say about this might not second mode. This would be applied to 19 per- be entirely true of every building built today. cent of the building, and the primary mode would be applied to 81 percent. Criticism of Separate 66 Scott: That is done on the assumption that Scott: Is this a good time to discuss the com- any modes higher than the first and second ments and criticism that came in regarding would be negligible? Separate 66, when it was originally published as Rinne: They are not always negligible. If the a "separate" in April 1951?" third mode is negligible, however, anything higher would also be negligible and need not be Rinne: Yes. Let's talk a little about the Japa- considered in design. The codes are now saying nese and other critics of Separate 66. that you should consider modes such that at least 90 percent of the weight of the structure is Japanese Response accounted for, and in the 15-mass building dis- Rinne: To start off with, the Japanese were cussed earlier 95 percent of the total weight complimentary. They were not too severe. was accounted for in the first two modes. [Riki] Sano felt that the adoption of triangular base shear distribution was excessively conser- Scott: How is the assignment of 8 1 percent vative, that it erred on the side of safety. But and 19 percent arrived at? [Kiyoshi] Muto and [Hajima] Umemura, for Rinne: This is where Ed Robison's calcula- example, felt that with the study of higher tions came in, calculations on that particular modes the triangular distribution appeared to building. That's what he determined. I could be insufficient, especially when the period rela- bring the sheet down and show you the figures that he carried out to the twelfth mode. This 15. Readers were able to respond to the Separate in says that 75 percent of the mass was in the first writing. In 1952 in the ASCE Transactions,the text of Separate 66 was published again, along mode, and the second mode only had 17.5 per- with the comments of the critics, and a response cent. The balance is assigned to modes three by the Separate 66 authors. "Lateral Forces of Earthquake and Wind," Transactions of the Amer- and higher. Anyway, 92 percent is covered in ican Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 117. ASCE, the first two modes. In order to assign the total New York, NY, 1952.

122 John E. Rinne Separate 66 Report Chapter 6

tion is such that the secondary mode is deeply That is one set of criteria and, as mentioned in excited. Separate 66, the Joint Committee gave a lot of weight to what they observed as damage in the Scott: That would be in taller buildings? 1906 earthquake and subsequent earthquakes. Rinne: Yes, shorter buildings are only vibrat- In providing the criteria for design, as distin- ing in the fundamental mode; for them the guished from criteria for strictly theoretical higher modes are nonexistent, or negligible. analysis, it continues to be the judgment of the But in taller buildings you might get this other practicing engineers (the SEAOC Seismology phenomenon. The Japanese did comment on Committee) that response actually experienced the fact that they think that the peak should in earthquakes must influence the practical, actually depend upon the soil conditions. They economical code criteria. felt that the peak spectral value should move Scott: You do not really want to comment farther out to 0.50 second period, and even on the content of the critique by Martel and this, as well as the minimum spectral value others at Caltech? But could you say something (0.02), should depend upon the soil condition about the general thrust of their remarks? In being higher for soft soils. It is interesting that which direction did their critique push? Were over the years to the most recent codes the they urging a more conservative position, or peak spectral response has been extended from less conservative, or does it oversimplify mat- second period to seconds, and soil 0.25 0.4 ters to pose the questions that way? conditions have become a variable by introduction of an S-factor which, in the latest [1987] Rinne: Well, let me argue that we recog- SEAOC code, varies from 1 to 2. nized that the theoretical responses were considerably higher than the factors to be used in design. They felt that we were overlooking Response porn Caltech Group some factors. Actually we were putting a lot of Rinne: We have progressed so rapidly and so our faith in the observed performance of build- far in various aspects of earthquake analysis, ings in earthquakes, rather than the analytical that comments on the critique by Professor performance. In fact, even today, they have a Martel and his associates no longer seem to be new factor, called RW, which is nothing but a in order at this stage. I have already indicated reduction factor from the theoretical factor. If that the response curves have changed through there is anything more well-founded other the years, and generally to more conservative than experience, I don't know, because you can figures. Not, of course, that the curves are in argue that the factor should be twice as high. themselves assurance that buildings or other For example, if you take this factor on the structures could sustain the vibrations of a SEAOC, the factor is applied 2.5 times the major earthquake.16 ground acceleration equals the theoretical 16. The Caltech group consisted of R.R. Martel, acceleration response. If ground acceleration is G.W. Housner, and J.L. Alford. 0.4 of g, then the response becomes 1 g. If you

123 Chapter 6 Connections: The EERf Oral History Series

divide that by 6(Rw = 6), it comes out to be ing years-thanks in good measure to the rapid 0.1667. This is the maximum basic design accel- development and utilization of the computer- eration response in the current code (NEHRP it is worth recording that the development of and SEAOC). So, to come up with practical codes and procedures has been with SepQrate 66 design criteria, we're still applying "experience as a base. Recommendations for additional factors" to the theoretical response of structures research and development were given and to the recorded ground acceleration. much has been accomplished.

Scott: You mean because otherwise the But designing and constructing buildings to be criteria would be impossibly stringent? adequately earthquake resistant is still not something that can be completely satisfied by Rinne: Yes. analytical calculations or codes. There is still a Scott: Also, in actual earthquake experience strong engineering judgment that needs to be have we not found that some buildings can per- applied. We have still had failures, despite form well, even when built to less-than- more rigorous codes and calculating abilities. theoretical criteria? We still seem to be able to create inadequate Rinne: Well, some buildings have performed structures, influenced by other than structural well. Some have performed badly. Take some of demands on the building. These have not been the hospitals. The Olive View Hospital [in San codified, and perhaps cannot be codified. But Fernando, California; severely damaged in the somehow the understanding of the structure 197 1 San Fernando earthquake] was a good still too often gets neglected and given lesser example of poor design, and I don't think any- importance than other considerations, such as body can say anything different about it. Some- function and architecture.

body was paying attention to the architecture, Their critique commented: 'I.. .all points of and not giving enough attention to the structure. earthquake-resistant design that cannot be Going back to the Caltech group, Martel et a1 established on the basis of reliable empirical and their discussion [expressed] entirely nega- data or incontrovertible analysis should be tive views on Separate 66. I didn't particularly treated with caution and.. .the design should be like that at the time. on the conservative side." Well, it's great for an academician to speak that way, but that is not Scott: You felt they were negative on the the way life is. The Caltech critics were all aca- whole thing? demicians or teachers at Caltech. Rinne: Yes. In their opinion there seemed to Scott: Are there any indications over the be nothing right about Sepayate 64-an opinion years that they may have shifted in their views? not shared by the Separate 66 authors, nor the structural engineering profession, either then Rinne: I don't know, and that is why I was a or now. While codes and design procedures little reluctant to comment on this, because and calculations have developed generally more really I do not think they saw the point, which conservatively than Separate 66 in the succeed- is that there is a distinct difference between

124 John E. Rinne Separate 66 Report Chapter 6

"incontrovertible analysis," [referring to the Caltech comments] and the actual design and construction of buildings."

17. During the course of an oral history interview, George Housner was later asked to comment on Separate 66 and did so. Housner's recollections will be published in a future volume of this series.

125

Chapter 7 Observations Based on Practice

"I think we do not concern ourselves enough about poor structural concepts governed by poor architectural concepts. II

Building Failures in the Alaska Earthquake Rinne: I think it is very important to relate design criteria to observations, not only for buildings but also for other structures as well. There were failures in the 1964 Alaska earthquake that were certainly indicative of the importance of the response of structures, such as the failures in two identical highrise apartment buildings, which suffered serious damage, and scared the hell out of the occupants, although the buildings didn't collapse. The buildings are now back in use, after they did whatever they did to "glue" things back together. The two identical buildings were several miles apart, but both suffered the same kind of damage. These buildings suffered severe damage because of their period, and again the spectral response to the earthquake ground motion. In contrast to that, there were some low buildings in Anchorage, which in some kinds of earthquake would have been damaged badly, but in this earthquake neither suffered damage nor spilled the contents of shelves. The contrasts in this quake were quite inter-

127 Chapter 7 Connections: The EERi Oral History Series

esting. Actually, Anchorage was a hundred or aged in that particular earthquake. Therefore, more miles away from the center of the earth- if the other tanks had been designed to meet quake, or from any part of the fault, which those criteria, they would not have been dam- went mostly toward Seward. The high- aged in the shell, as they were. intensity, high-frequency ground motions were The roofs of tanks were damaged because of pretty well damped out within 100 miles. the sloshing of the liquid contents, whether oil What they were feeling in Anchorage was the or water or whatever, up against the roof. The continuing, slower, longer-period, lower- roofs are not designed for that kind of force, frequency motion, which affected the tall build- and really cannot be. Fluid sloshing caused ings, but did not affect the low buildings as some buckling damage to the roof and upper much. Then there were other kinds of failures courses of the shell of the tank, the round part in Alaska-such as Four Seasons, a brand-new of the tank. But the thing that was very clear in building that collapsed badly because of a very the Alaska earthquake with respect to tanks was poor concept for earthquake resistance, and a that very few tanks collapsed. Most actually complete lack of continuity of reinforcing, so retained their storage capacity, even though there were reasons for that collapse. they had what are called elephant-foot type of I think we do not concern ourselves enough failures at the base of the shells. about poor structural concepts governed by poor architectural concepts. The failure of the Damage to Offshore Facility Olive View Hospital in the San Fernando Rinne: We had an earthquake in Santa Bar- earthquake of 197 1 was due to a horrible archi- bara channel a while back-it was not a very tectural and structural concept. The isolated serious earthquake, except that some of the stairwells fell over, and a flexible first story auxiliary equipment had a period resonant to could not accept the motions imposed by the the motion of an offshore structure, an offshore shears generated above. oil facility. Lacking damping, a steel srack vibrated severely in resonance with the period Tank Damage in Alaska of the supporting platform. Rinne: A large number of tanks were dam- Although some minor parts suffered damage, aged in that long-duration earthquake; some of the offshore structures as a whole did not. At them failed disastrously-they collapsed the time the facilities were designed primarily entirely. I wrote a paper on observations and for wave motion, although they were checked calculations I made on the damage to storage for 10 percent g too, without going to the con- tanks in that earthquake.18 I indicated some cept of spectral response to the motion. I know criteria characterizing tanks that were not dam- engineers are now more concerned with earthquake response of the main offshore structural 18. Rinne, John E., Oil Storage Tanks in The Prince systems than they were at one time. Most of William Souad, Alaska, Earthquake of 1964 and Aftershocks, US. Coast and Geodetic Survey, our criteria have become more and more con- 1967. servative, in the sense of requiring higher lat-

128 John E. Rinne Observatons Based on Practice Chapter 7

era1 loads, but that cannot be the only criterion "0.67 Building" vs. "0.8 Building" for establishing earthquake-resistant structures. With Backup System You really have to analyze the earthquake resis- Rinne: Henry Degenkolb addressed a meet- tance of a structural system in a rational and ing at the University of California a few years consistent manner. It is not enough merely to ago. I went because I was interested in listening define base shears or forces or moments to be to Henry. I asked Henry whether he had a pref- considered in the design. It is extremely diffi- erence for what we used to call the "0.8 build- cult to codify the differences I am speaking of, ing," or the "0.67 building." An 0.67 building because it really should rely upon the under- relies entirely upon the ductility and strength standing of the designer himself, the structural of the moment resisting frame for its earth- engineer who is doing the designing. I wish quake resistance. An 0.8-type building gets its there were ways of introducing more of the first line of earthquake resistance from shear structural criteria in the concept of a building, walls or shear bracing, using the secondary rather than having the structure governed by resistance of a moment resisting frame, functional or architectural requirements, which designed for less stringent criteria force-wise too often makes a sound structural system diffi- than a 0.67 frame, as a backup system. The v-al- cult or even impossible to achieve. ues of 0.67 and 0.80 refer to the relative base shears used in the static equivalent force Concerns About Reinforced design. In codes, these have been designated as Concrete "K values." The base shear then was defined as V = KCW. Later additional factors have been Rinne: If you are concerned about earth- added as multipliers: "I" for structure impor- quake resistance, it is extremely important that tance and "S" for supporting soil qpe. Until the basic concept of the building design pro- recently the base shear formula has read V = vide for such earthquake resistance. I know in KCISW. recent years in very high buildings we have Henry did not hesitate to say that he prefers begun relying almost entirely on the earth- the 0.8-type building. In fact, what we gener- quake resistance of the frame, usually a steel ally do when we have to provide additional frame. But it is not always steel, and that does earthquake resistance in a building is to add bother me a bit, because of the inherent weak- bracing to conform to at least an 0.8-type ness of reinforced concrete in building frames. building. We design additional shear elements The only ways concrete can avoid failure in a of some kind that will provide resistance-at severe earthquake is for it to be encased in steel least the first phases of earthquake resistance- pipe, which is not done, or in closely spaced and avoid collapse. spiral reinforcement that will keep the concrete inside the cage. The concrete cover outside the But I am afraid that even today there are not reinforcing invariably spalls off in major earth- very many architects who are very seriously quake shaking. inclined toward earthquake resistance. I cannot

129 Chapter 7 Connections: The EERl Oral History Series

say who is to blame, because part of it is due to trations from the frame, to permit the frame to the owner's desire for the building to have cer- deflect and carry stresses due to tain functional assets, as well as to minimize earthquake-induced forces. I hope they work, cost. That's great, but at the same time they do but without having participated in the analyses things that make it almost impossible to make that apparently justifv their concept, I still have the building truly earthquake resistant. And my apprehensions. that does not always make it possible to ade- Beside this concern, I am reasonably certain quately protect human life, which is the prime that if the flexibility is provided to activate the purpose of seismic safety codes. My concern framing, thus increasing building periods and about 0.67 buildings is that inherently, becausc reducing earthquake forces, then winds are of the fact that there are walls, windows, etc., very likely to cause discomforting movement, parts of the structure are going to resist earth- especially in the upper stories, and this must quakes first because of their stiffnesses. And it give occupants concern, In fact, there are high- is difficult to provide a building that has walls, this permit windows, etc., with enough flexibility to permit rise buildings that in way do the load to be taken by the frame that you have enough movement so that the lateral resistance of the frame is effectively used. There are designed to provide all of the earthquake resis- also tance. some buildings of this type that are so flexible as to move objectionably in design winds or even lesser winds, much to the discomfort of Concerns About Highrises occupants. "Drift" liinitations under design Rinne: Personally, I am very apprehensive of earthquake and/or wind load are very impor- the present practice with highrise buildings, of tant, both in code-prescribcd floor-to-floor relying entirely on the resistance of the deflections, and in the cumulative lateral frame-whether steel or concrete. Great effort deflections, which are more noticeable in the is made to divorce walls, partitions, and fenes- upper floors of a multistoried highrise building.

130 Chapter 8 Concluding Observations on Earthquake Engineering

Flexible First Story Scott: Would you like to make any other observations about earthquake engineering, past or present? Rinne: I ascribe a lot of the problems we have had in recent years to very poor configurations from the standpoint of earthquake resistance. [That also applies to flexible first story buildings.] At one time when Walter Huber saw a building that had exterior columns in the first story, and then a wall that went from above the first story-in effect a flexible first story concept-he came out and said, "That isn't earthquake resistant." Incidentally, at one time the flexible first story concept was promoted by some of the engineers in San Francisco as being the way to build. But it was not Huber's idea of the way to do it, and has since proven to be a very poor way of handling earthquake forces, not carrying the lateral forces down to the ground, but instead having them come down the outside walls, and expect them to be transferred into a little core on the inside, with the elevators, utility walls, and whatever they might have in the center of the building. That concept continues to plague the engineering profession. Although now they seem to be thinking that with modern construction technology they can construct flexible outside walls that will still permit the building to deflect due to lateral forces, and have the frame take all of the lateral forces that are

131 Chapter 8 Connections: The EERl Oral History Series

required without damaging the wall. That is Rinne: Yes, that actually has happened. That the present concept, and it has been for some happened on a building at 14th and Broadway years, with the thought of being able to accom- in Oakland, where Arthur Anderson, one of the modate the earthquake-induced movement of fellows who was on the Joint Committee, had the building without necessarily even breaking offices. He was a partner in Corlet and Ander- glass. That is going to be subject to some ques- son, Architects and Engineers. They were on tion. It will be pretty well established, I think, an upper floor of that building, and had consid- when some of these buildings are subjected to a erable objection to the motion of the building, significant earthquake, to see whether they do even in moderate winds. The building was perform the way they are supposed to. designed in some fashion to be flexible, but I do not know the details of just how they did that. Excessive Deflection Rinne: Another aspect of it that has always Some Final Comments troubled me is that the concept of a modern Designs Have to be Relative designed building with flexible outside walls permits the building to deflect too much-to Rinne: The application of earthquake theory deflect enough so that the frame alone takes the to specific design problems to meet the ground lateral forces without damaging partitions or motions of some unknown future earthquake is the outside skin of the building. What bothers difficult, partly because earthquakes are not all me is that being flexible means that the flexi- alike. Unlike the constancy of the weight and bility will result in movement of the building, pressure of a liquid in a tank, earthquake even under wind forces. Particularly in the designs have to be relative. A degree of earth- upper stories, one can feel this wind-caused quake resistance is provided by the criteria movement, and feel it uncomfortably. accepted for design-or prescribed by code Earthquake motion can, of course, be felt on law. But this is not a guarantee against failure. even the ground floor of a building. At that The resulting design will no doubt withstand level it is the ground motion that you feel. But forces to a "reasonable" approximation of what up high in a tall building, what you're going to is needed for a structure to resist earthquakes be feeling is an amplified motion, amplified by of some specified magnitude or intensity. It is what the building is doing. Even in wind, it has always possible, however, to cite examples of or been found that the motion at the top can be anticipate more severe earthquakes that could excessive. cause greater damage than considered accept- Scott: If wind can cause enough movement able. Site-specific earthquake spectra are to be considered uncomfortable, I guess certain strongly preferred to "standardized spectra," in lands of sustained earthquake motion could order to avoid damage such as occurred in cause a much greater response. And just Mexico City in 1985 to buildings having funda- because of wind motion alone, people can be mental periods close to 2 seconds. Response sent home from some offices on windy days. effects there were disastrous.

132 John E. Rinne Conciuding Observations on Earthquake Engineering Chapter 8

Other Important Factors ufactured weaknesses that can have a major Rinne: Other important factors can also influence on the behavior of structures in influence the ability to achieve the desired earthquakes. earthquake resistance of structures. These 4. Inspection of construction leaves other important factors include: something to be desired, and needs more 1. The architectural configuration too understanding and support so that it is given frequently has defects that dominate the adequate attention. design, and cannot possibly lead to the desired As more time elapses after the last earthquake earthquake resistance. in a particular region, the public seems to 2. Earthquake resistance is a much become less and less concerned about the haz- more complex design problem than providing ard potential. Thus it is regretfully understand- for normal vertical load, even when wind load able why the problem, complex as it is, does not is added to design requirements. Designing for get the attention it should receive if truly ade- earthquake resistance also requires consistent quate earthquake-resistant structures are to attention to stress paths and structural details. prevail. As it is now, I expect that a major earth- 3. Structural materials are not all equal quake (say Richter 7+) in any of our urban areas in their capacity to resist earthquake motion, will lead to major damage and, unfortunately, and even the best materials have inherent man- to injury and death.

133

Photographs

The drafting room at Dewell and Earl; Rinne is at the center table, 7935 (photo: Hirsch & Kaye).

135 Photos Connections: The EERI Oral History Series

John Rinne with his father, three brothers, and two of his sons. Left to right: son Stan, John Rinne, Rinne’s father Emil holding son Ed, and brothers Clarence, Art, and Henry, 1940.

SEAOC convention, 1959, at the Hotel Coronado, California; left to right John A. Blume, Charles De Maria, Herman F. Finch, John E. Rinne, Nathan M. Newmark, Leo H. Corning.

136 John E. Rinne Photos

Rinne at his deskaf Chevron, 1964.

Below: Professor Kiyoshi Mufo, outgo- ing President of IAEE, and John €. Rinne, newly installed as IAEE Presi- dent, at the Third World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, held in Auk- land and Wellington, New Zealand, 1965.

137 Photos Connections: The EERI Oral History Series

Rinne on cover of Consulting Engineer, November 7972(photo: Wagner International Photos).

138 John E. Rinne Photos

Rinne, with Clyde Bentley, receiving the Distinguished Engi- neering Alumnus Award, 1977 (photo: Russell Abraham).

Three generations of University of California at Berkeley civil engineering graduates: John Rinne (1931, 1935), son Ed (1961, 1963), andgrandson Tom (1988, 1989). Photo taken in 1987atan Engineering Alumni barbecue.

139

Michael V. Pregnoff Index

properties, 52 Michael V. size, 13, 14, 34,46 steel, 12, 58 Pregnoff strength, 35 Bechtel Corporation, San Francisco, CA, 26 Beebe, Ken, 26 A Bending, 24 Adrian, William, 22 Blue Book See Structural Engineers Association Alexander Building, San Francisco, CA, 52 of California (SEAOC) Allen, Rex, 20 Blume, John A., 51 American Concrete Institute (ACI) URS-Blume Corporation, 53 Deflection of Concrete Structures Brick Committee, 8, 26 mortar, 1.5, 16, 22 American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), unreinforced, 15, 17,22 35,43,49, 51 walls, 14, 15, 29 Anchorage, Alaska earthquake (1964), 55 Brittleness, 22 Appendix A See Field Act Brown, Arthur, 20,30 Architects, 12, 19, 24,26, 30, 37,40,43, 53, 56 Brunnier, Henry J., 5, 7, 13, 17,47, SO Architectural features, concrete arches, 2 1 Building Code for California (1939), 48, 63 Architectural fees, 20 Building codes Architecture, 19 1939 Chamber of Commerce code, 48 code compliant but inadequate, 56 ASCE See American Society of Civil Engineers compliant designs, 3 3 (ASCE) design forces, 3 3 Award Navy construction, meritorious service, 5 1 development, 47 ductility, 30 Los Angeles, CA, 17 B Russian, 39 San Francisco, CA, 17, 30 Bakewell & Brown, Engineers, 20 SEAOC Blue Book, 41,43,47,49, SO, 51 Bauxite ore Separate 66, 49 and concrete ships, 24 Building inspection, 18, 22 Beams, 38,43 Building materials, 45 bending, 29,40 22, aluminum, 30 concrete, 11, 13, 17,20, 39,46 brittle, 22 design, 28, 58 concrete See Concrete failure, 17 flexible, 22 floor, 27

141 Index Connections: The EERI Oral History Series

sheathing, 12 vibration, 15, 31, 32 sheet metal, 30 modes of, 30,44 steel, 12, 29, 58 workmanship, importance of, 22, 31, 35 steel See also Steel yielding, 15, 31, 32, 33 wood, 12,45 Buildings, individual Buildings 450 Sutter Building, San Francisco, CA, 33 act as a unity, 17 Alexander Building, San Francisco, CA, S2 architect determines fate of, 20 California State Capitol, reconstruction, 53 behavior of in earthquakes, 15, 31, 32, 33, Call Building, San Francisco, CA, 15 34,46 Cow Palace, San Francisco, CA, 22 brick, 14, 15, 29 Kaiser Hospital Building, San Francisco, cataloging, 118 CA, 44 codes See Building codes Mills Building, San Francisco, CA, 15 collapse, 12, 14, IS, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, Mutual Bank Building, San Francisco, CA, 55,56 15 columns See Columns Opera House, San Francisco, CA, 16 concrete See Concrete Pasadena vitamin pill factory, 20 costs, 20, 31, 35 Perpetual Savings Building, Los Angeles, curtain walls, 14 CA, 21,25 damage to in earthquakes, 30 PG&E Building, San Francisco, CA, design damping, 14, 32, 33, 52 of, 25 details, 11, 3 1, 38, 39,40 San Francisco City Hall, seismic design of, 12 simplicity of, 58 existing, analysis of, 3 3 SanFrancisco Opera House, 13,1.5,16,27, 47 foundations, 12,24 framing, 12,40 Buildings, response properties of brittleness, 22 Greek and Roman design, 27 deflection, 33,34,35 irregular See Buildings, types of distortion, 3 2 nonstructural elements, 31, 32, 33, 35, 52 ductility, 13,30,32,33,35 nonstructural partitions, 14, 32 flexibility, 14, 22, 30,40, SO offshore structures, 26 stiffness, 38,45, SO redundancy, 3 0 concrete, 15,29 reinforcement, 13, 16,23,29, 3 2,46 distribution of, 39 sheathing, 12 irregular, 41 steel See also Buildings, types of values, 44 stud walls, 12 strength, 15, 33, 34, 39,44 sytem of rating, Pregnoff development of, 8 torque, 38, 39,40 tying together, 3 1 torsion, 42 veneer, 12

142 Michael V. Pregnoff Index

vulnerability of, 40 steel, 15 Buildings, types of steel tube, 38 concrete, 20, 24, 32, 38,46 strength, 3.5 concrete blocks, 12, 38 variations in, 38 concrete See also Concrete yielding, 32 irregular, 19, 20, 33, 34, 37,40,46 Committee work multistory, 32, 51 Deflection of Concrete Structures San Francisco, old, performance of in Committee, ACI, 8, 26 future earthquakes, 3 3 Seismology Committee of the Structural steel, 14, 15, 17, 20, 29, 30, 33,48, 55, 58 Engineers Association of Northern steel See also Steel California, 4 tall, 14, 15, 30, 33, 34,48, 52, 55 Structural Engineers Association of Northern California (SEAONC), unreinforced brick, 15, 17 President, 5 1 unreinforced masonry, 15 Compression, 32,44 Computers, use of in engineering, 58 C Blume, John A., 5 1 deflections, determining, 3 5 California Chamber of Commerce building drawings, 12 code (1939), 48, 63 future of, 46 Call Building, San Francisco, CA, 15 irregular buildings, 37,41 Capitol, State of California, 53 joints, 43 Chew, R.S., 4, 13, 14 judgment, necessity of use in conjunction book on earthquake design, 14 with, 33,42,43,44, 58 San Francisco Opera House, work on, 13 limitations, 4.5 Clark Company, Alameda, CA, 10 modelipg, 41 Codes See Building codes practical, 44, 46 Pregnoff philosophy, 45 Collapse ofbuildings, 12, 14, 15, 17,26,30,31, 32, 33, 34, 55, 56 shaking models, 33 Columns, 13, 3 1,43,46 Concrete bending, 29 arches, 2 1 concrete, 13 beams, 11, 13, 17,20 corner, 40 short, 46 design, 26, 33 block wall, 12, 22, 38 failure, 17 blocks, 22 lateral forces on, 14 buildings, 24 lateral load, 40 columns, 13 properties, 52 cracking, 3 1 size, 14, 34 deflection, 26

143 Index Connections: The EERI Oral History Series

details, 12, 38 Design, 20 ductility, 13 act as a unity, 17 exterior walls, 14 architectural, 39 flat slab construction, 20,48 beams See Beams grout, 23 brick, 29 member sizes, 13 characteristics, 39 multistory, reinforced, 5 1 code compliance, 33, 39, 56 Pasadena vitamin pill factory, 20 code forces, 33 pouring, 23 columns, 26, 33 precast, 30, 56 columns See also Columns quality, 18, 32 computers See Computers, use of in ships, 24 engineering shrinkage studies, 8 concrete See Concrete standards, 11 considerations, 32, 39 stiffness of, 29 Cow Palace, San Francisco, CA, 22 use of for nonstructural purposes, 3 3 criteria, 34 walls, 12, 14, 29, 30, 32, 33 damping, 14, 32,33, 52 Connections, 31, 35,42,43,45,56, 58 deflection, limiting, 34 moment resisting, 15, 30 details See Details Construction drift limitation, 34 flat slab, 3 1,48 ductility See Buildings, response properties inspection during, 22 of steel, 29, 48 dynamic analysis, 35, 41, 42, 43 earthquake resistant, 13, 15, 17, 30 Cope, E.L., 5, 13,47,48 elastic, 31, 33,43 Corning, Leo 5’1 H., flexibility See Buildings, response Cow Palace, San Francisco, CA properties of design of, 22 force as a function of period, Separate 66, Curtain walls, 14 49 Greek and Roman, 2 7 irregular buildings, 19,20, 33, 34, 37,40, 41,46 lateral forces See Lateral forces Damping, 14, 32, 33, 52 lateral loads, 40 Dead load, 48 multistorv, 32. 51 I_ Deflection, 33, 34, 35 Nervi, Luigi, 40,43 Degenkolb,HenryJ., 1.5, 17, 31, 32,33,49, 50, offshore structures, 26 52, 55, 56 peer review, 43 Degrees of freedom, 49, 50 public schools, 49

144 Michael V. Pregnoff Index

redundancy, 3 0 Drawings reinforcing bars See Reinforcing bars departure from, 24 repetition, 58 details incomplete, 33 response properties See Buildings, response inadequate, 57 properties of Drift limitation, 34 review, 43 Ductility, 33 San Francisco City Hall, seismic design of, code compliant, 30 12 concrete, 13, 32 San Francisco Opera House, 13 cost of providing more, 3 5 seismic definition of, 3 1 construction joints, 38 steel, 13 joints, 20 Dynamic analysis, 35, 41, 42,43 practice, state of, 55 resistance, 30 retrofitting, 26 E Russian code, 39 shear forces, 30, 56 Earl, Austin W., 5, 13 simplicity in, 37,40 Earthquake-resistant design See Seismic Design Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA Earthquakes Hoover Library Tower, 14 Anchorage, AK (1 964), 55 hospital, 20 Long Beach, CA (1 93 3), 55 strength, 35 Mexico City (1985), 17,31,55 tall buildings, 14, 15, 34, 55 San Francisco, CA (1906), 14, 15, 33, 55 theory, 27 Tokyo, Japan (1923), 16, 17 tying buildings together, 17 Elasticity, 3 1, 3 3,43 unreinforced brick, 17 Ellison 'and King, Engineers, 24 vertical loads, 40 Engineering wind forces, 14, 17, 34 aesthetics of good, 2 1 yielding, 15, 31, 32, 33 art of, SO Details, 39, SO Blume, John, A., contributions of, 5 1 connections, 3 1 business, 33 determining, 40 common sense, 43 inadequate, 17, 56 computer use in, 58 mechanical, 11 Blume, John A., 51 poor drawings, 57 deflections, determining, 3 5 repetition, 38,58 drawings, 12 simplicity, 58 future of, 46 typical, 11 irregular buildings, 41 Distortion, 32

145 Index Connections: The EERl Oral History Series

joints, 43 Framing systems judgment, 33,42,43,44 details, 12 limitations, 45 steel, 14, 15, 17,20,29, 30 modeling, 41 steel with brick walls, 29 practical, 44, 46 tall, analysis of, 5 1 Pregnoff philosophy of, 45 Freeman, John R., 15 shaking models, 3 3 costs of, 20, 31, 3.5 drawings, 24, 33, 57 G fees, 31 Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco, CA license, 27 analysis of oscillation, 52 plan checking, 57 Graham and Kellam, Engineers, 22 Engineering practice, 17,22, 24, 27 Graham, Les, 22 existing buildings, analysis of, 33 Ground motion, 31, 3.5, 38,41 intuition, 39 building response, 3 3 judgment, 17,25,33, 35,42,43,44, 50 resonance, 3 3 large offices, 22 Grout, concrete, 23 large offices, quality control problem, 57 learning, 27 Pregnoff views on, 28 small offices, 22, 57 H standards, 11, 12, 27,47, 57 Hall and Pregnoff, Engineers, 26 state of seismic design, 55 Hall, FredF., 4, 12, 13, 25, 26, 35,47, 51 workmanship, importance of, 22, 3 1, 35 Hall, Pregnoff and Matheu, Engineers, 26 Hoover Library Tower, Stanford University, 4 F Housner, George W., 49 Field Act, 23,49, 57 Appendix A, 49 I Oakland, CA schools, 7 Independent review, 43 Regultion No. J Relating to the Safety of Design and Constmction of Public School Inspection of buildings, 22 Buildings in California, 49 Intuition, 39 Flat slab construction, 3 1,48 Irregular buildings, 19,20, 33, 34, 37,40,46 Flexibility, 14, 22, 30,40, 50 Fortran, 46 Foundations, 12,24

146 Michael V. Pregnoff Index

Kellberg, Frederick W., 22 J Kessy, Ira, 2.5 Jacobsen, Lydik S., 52 Jobs analysis of San Francisco hotel, 3 5 L brick maker, 10 Lateral forces, 14, 17, 30 Clark Company, Alameda, CA, 10 8 percent, 48 concrete ships, design of, 24 application of, 44 costs of, 20, 31, 35 designing for, 48 Cyclotron, University of California, 4 determining, SO draftsman, early work as, 11 framing members that carry, 32 first job, 10 period of response, SO Kaiser Hospital Building, San Francisco, resistance of structure to, 33, 38,48, 52 CA, 44 weight of building, SO military buildings, design of, 4 Lateral loads, 40 Pasadena vitamin pill factory, 20 Leonard, J.B., 47 Perpetual Savings Building, Los Angeles, CA, 21 Level, establishing, 27 Planetarium, San Francisco, CA, 4 Live load, 30,48 Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA Long Beach, CA earthquake (1933), 55 Hoover Library Tower, 14 Hoover Tower, 4 hospital, design of, 20 M reconstruction of buildings, 26 Martel, Raul R. (R.R.), 49 Synchrotron, University of California, 4 Masonry, 29 University of California unreinforced, 15 Cyclotron, 4 Matheu, Robert, 7,21,22,25,26,27,34, 35,40 Dwinelle Hall, 4 photograph of, 62 Synchrotron, 4 McClure, Frank E., 8, 2 1 Joists, 12 Mexico City earthquake (1985), 17,31,5.5 Judgment, importance of, 17,2 5,33,3 5,42,43, Mills Building, San Francisco, CA, 15 44 Moment resisting connections, 15, 30 Mortar, 15, 16, 22 K Mutual Bank Building, San Francisco, CA, 15 Kaiser Hospital Building, San Francisco, CA, 44 Kellam, H.S. (Pete), 7,22

147 Index Connections: The EERl Oral History Series

Preece, F. Robert, 8 N Pregnoff and Matheu, Engineers, 22,27 Nervi, Luigi, Structures, 39,43 Pregnoff, Michael V. Newmark, Nathan "The Engineer and the Computer Age" Design of Multistory Reinforced Concrete (Nov. 1975), 45 Buildings, 5 1 analysis of tall frames, development of, 5 1 Nishian, L.H., 5 and the Russian Revolution, 4 Nishkian, L.H., 13,47,48 born in Russia, 9 born in Vladivostok, Russia, 3 Nonstructural elements, 14, 31, 32, 33, 35, 52 ability to resist earthquake forces, 14 camera, 10 committee work Nonstructural partitions, 14, 32 Deflection of Concrete Structures Committee, ACI, 8, 26 0 President, Structural Engineers Association of Northern Oakland Unified School District California, 5 1 replacement of pre-Field Act schools, 7 Seismology Committee of the Offshore structures, 26 Structural Engineers Associa- tion of Northern California, 4 design P buildings, 3 3 Palace Hotel, San Francisco, CA, 15 concrete ships, 24 Paquette and Associates, Engineers, 22 Navy buildings, 5 1 Paquette, Al, 12, 22, 57 design See also Jobs draftsman, early work as, 11 Partitions hollow tile, 32 early years, 9 nonstructural, 14, 32 education, 9, 10 plaster, 32 Ellison and King, design work for, 24 Hall and Pregnoff, Engineers, 26 Partitions See also Nonstructural elements Hall, Pregnoff and Matheu, Engineers, 26 Peer review, 43 Jobs See Jobs Perpetual Savings Building, Los Angeles, CA, laboratory at home, 10 21,25 learning experience early in career, 27 PG&E Building, San Francisco, CA, Pregnoff military buildings, design of, 4 design of, 25 nature, love of, 9 Plan checking, 57 office practice, 5 1 Planetarium, San Francisco, CA, 4 PG&E Building, San Francisco, CA, design PMB Corporation, 26 of, 25 photograph of, 6 1,62

148 Michael V. Pregnoff Index

PMB Corporation, 26 standards of practice, 47 Pregnoff and Matheu, Engineers, 2 7 steel, 30 Report on Stmctural Stability of Certain Old tying the building together, 3 1 School Buildings in the Oakland UnzJied waves, 25 School District, 7 wind, 14 Russia, education in, 10 Retrofitting, 26, 34 San Francisco Opera House, work on, 13 Reynolds and Chamberlain, Architects, 7 Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA Hoover Library Tower, design of, 14 Russia, 11 education in, 10 hospital, design of, 20 seismic code, 39 reconstruction of buildings, 26 Stone, Ed, work with architect, 20 style of working, 22 System of building ratings, development of, S 8 San Francisco, CA theory on best construction, 30 1906 earthquake, 14,15,33,s 5 views on engineering practice, 28 450 Sutter Building, 33 Alexander Building, 52 building code, 17, 20, 30 R buildings, 3 0 Call Building, 15 Redundancy, 3 0 City Hall, seismic design of, 12 Reinforcement, 13, 16, 23,29, 32,46 Cow Palace, San Francisco, CA, 22 Reinforcing bars, 17, 22, 24, 31 Golden Gate Bridge, 52 Repetition, 35, 38, 58 Kaiser Hospital Building, 44 Report on Stmctural Stability of Certain Old School Mills Building, 15 Buildings in the Oakland Unzfied School Mutual Bank Building, 15 District (August 20, 1953)) 7 old buildings, performance of in future Resistance of buildings to earthquake forces earthquakes, 3 3 bracing, 44 Opera House, 15, 16,27,47 columns, 14,40 Opera Houseropera, 13 computer use in, 44 photograph of 1906 earthquake, 15 concrete, 29, 32, 38,44 Planetarium, 4 connections, 42 Pregnoff analysis of hotel, 3 5 early efforts, 17 seismic design of buildings, 17 elastic, 3 1 Sheraton-Palace Hotel, 15 lateral forces, 30,48, 52 tall buildings, 15 materials, 22 Saph, A.V. (Gus), 13, 16,47,48 nonstructural elements, 14, 32 Saph, Gus A.V., 5

149 Index Connections: The EERI Oral History Series

SEAOC See Structural Engineers Association of Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, 23 California (SEAOC) Hoover Library Tower, 4, 14 SEAONC See Structural Engineers Association hospital, design of, 20 of Northern California (SEAONC) reconstruction of buildings, 26 Seismic design, 37 State of California, Capitol construction joints, 38 reconstruction of, 53 early, 16, 17 Steel joints, 20 beams, 12, 58 practice, state of', 55 buildings, 14, 15, 17, 20, 29, 30, 33, 55 resistance, 30 columns, 15, 38 retrofitting, 26 construction, 29,48 Russian, 39 ductility, 13 San Francisco, CA, 17 reinforcing bars, 17, 22,24, 31, 32, 38 Seismic design See also Design Stiffness Seismic joints, 20 distribution of, 39 construction joints, 38 irregular, 41 Separate 66, 49 values, 44 Shaking table, 52 Stiffness of buildings, 45 concrete, 15,29, 38 Shear forces, 30,44, 56 response properties, 50 Sheathing, 12 vulnerability of, 40 Sheet metal, 30 Stone, Ed, 20, 2 1 Sheraton-Palace Hotel, San Francisco, CA, 15 Pregnoff work with, 20 Simplicity of detail, 5'8 Stratta, James L., 7,21,24, 26, 56 Simpson and Stratta, Engineers, 26 Strength of buildings, 15, 33, 34, 39,44 Simpson, Albert T., 2 1,26 Stresses, 3 1 Slide rule, 25,27 Structural Engineers Association of California Snyder, C.H.,4, 11, 13, 14,47,48, 58 (SEAOC), 41,45,49 450 Sutter Building, design of, 3 3 Blue Book, 4,41,47,49, SO, 5 1 lateral force computation, 17 irregular buildings provisions, 40 modeling, 52 Seismology Committee, 41 PG&E Building, San Francisco, CA (1 92 5 Structural Engineers Association of Northern design of, 30 California (SEAONC), 11,41,49 PG&E Building, San Francisco, CA(1925), Pregnoff president of, 5 1 design of, 38 System of building ratings, 8 Pregnoffs first job with, 10 Pregnoff development of, 8 San Francisco Opera House, design of, 13 Soil characteristics, 43

150 Michael V. Pregnoff Index

T W Tension, 44 Walls Title 24 See Field Act aluminum, 30 brick, 14, 15, 29 Tokyo, Japan earthquake (1923), 16, 17 concrete, 12, 14, 29, 30, 32, 33,44 Torque, 38,39,40 concrete block, 23 Torsion, 42 sheet metal, 30 Trusses, 12 Wind forces, 14, 17, 34 Workmanship, 22, 31, 3.5 U World War 11, 25 U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, 50 Ulrich, Franklin P., SO Y Uniform Building Code, 49, SO Yield, 15, 31, 32, 33 University of California, Berkeley, CA Cyclotron, 4 Dwinelle Hall, 4 Seismic Safety Policy, 8 Synchrotron, 4 Unreinforced brick, 15, 17 Unreinforced masonry, 15 URS-Blume Corporation, San Francisco, CA, 53

V Veneer, 12 Vertical loads, 40 Vibration buildings, 15, 31, 32, 33 modes, 30,44 Vitamin pill factory, Pasadena, CA, 20 Vladivostok, Russia, 10 Pregnoff born in, 9 Vladivostok, Russia, Pregnoff born in, 3, 9

151

John E. Rinne Index

John E. Rinne B Baharain Refinery, 92 Bakersfield, CA earthquake (1952), 112 A Base shear Accelerations, 102, 110, 115, 119, 123, 124 codifying, 117 coefficients, 107, 1 11 Accelerographs, 102, 105 1933 Long Beach, CA earthquake, 102 defining, 103, 104, 110, 120, 129 determining, 104, 11 1, 116 Alexander Building, San Francisco, CA, 105 determining design, 129 American Concrete Institute (ACI), 99 establishing design, 114 American Institute of Steel Construction ground motion, response to, 106 (AISC), 99 strength offset, 11 1 American Society for Civil Engineers (ASCE) triangular distribution of, 1 17, 122 ASCEISEAONC joint committee, 78 Beams, 113 American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Bechtel-Price-Callahan joint venture, Canol 77, 88, 97, 103, 111, 114 pipeline project, 93 Rinne President of, 97 Bently, Clyde, 139 San Francisco section, 97 Berkeley City Camp at Echo Lake, 81 American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Leon S. Moissieff Award, 11 1 Berkeley High School, Berkeley, CA, 81 Binder, R.W., 78 Anchorage, AK earthquake (1964), 112, 1 16, 127, 128 Biot, Maurice A,, 103, 104, 105, 106, 109, 111, 115 Anderson, Arthur W., 132 Blume, John A., 78,105,136 Architects, 83, 102 Bridges, 119 Architectural configuration, 133 Broadway Tunnel, Oakland-Orinda, 88 ASCE See American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Brown, CJ., 95 Awards Building codes, 101-108 base shear, 120 Distinguished Engineering Alumnus, University of California, Berkeley, CA, California State Chamber of Commerce 139 building code (1939), 89 &aft prize, University of California at design coefficients, 114 Berkeley, 82 development of, 101-108 Leon S. Moissieff Award, American Society J-factor, 118 of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 111 life safety, 130 University Medalist, runner-up, University San Francisco, CA, 112 of California at Berkeley, 82 SEAOC Blue Book, 114

153 rn Connections: The EERl Oral History Series

Separate 66, 98, 101, 104, 105, 106, 107, 555 Market Street, San Francisco, CA, 92 109-114, 115 Alexander Building, San Francisco, CA, S-factor, 115 105 Vensano, 103 Caswell Coffee Building, San Francisco, Vensano code, 103 CA, 101-102 Building materials Flood Building, San Francisco, CA, 106 capacity to resist earthquake forces, 13 3 Four Seasons Building, Anchorage, AK, concrete, 86,99, 111, 112, 113, llS, 129, 128 130 Buildings, response properties of, 115, 116, 127 steel, 111 acceleration, 124 Building Seismic Safety Council, 112 behavior of during earthquakes, 112 Buildings coefficients, 107 backup system, 129 curves, 123 behavior of in earthquakes, 117 deflection, 106, 130, 131, 132 cataloging, 118-1 19 determining, 116 collapse of in earthquake, 107, 113, 127, differences between theoretical and code, 128, 129 107-1 08 damping, 107, 116, 128 differences between theory and code, 107 earthquake forces on, 88 drift limitations, 130 first story, 13 1 ductility, 129 foundations See Foundations during earthquakes, 12 3 fundamental periods, 107, 13 3 flexibility,94, 104, 106, 116, 128, 130, 131, highrise, 127, 130 132 mass, 88 fundamental mode, 118 one-mass, 116 fundamental period, 107 performance of in earthquakes, 132 greater due to long motions, 132 reinforcement, 11 3, 129 height, 117, 127, 130 reinforcement, spiral, 112 improvement, 117 response, 13 3 increasing, 120 response See Buildings, response properties inelastic response, 116 of modal, 113, 120 stirrups, 113 overturning, 116, 118 tall, 117, 129, 130 overturning effect, 114, 117 vibration, 103,104,105,106,107,111,116, overturning moment, 103, 112, 11 3, 118 118,122 ratio to ground acceleration, 115 weight, 105, 122 response curve, one-mass system, 116 yielding, 117 response curves, 116 Buildings, individual response to ground motion, 106 225 Bush Street, San Francisco, CA, 92 spectra, 107-1 08

154 John E. Rinne Index

spectral, 103,104,105,107,123,127, 128 North Sea platforms, 95 stiffness, 88, 130 Claussen, Dr. William (stepson), 82 strength, 102, 111, 117, 129 Claussen, Josephine (wife), 82 vibration, 104 Collapse of buildings, 107, 113, 127, 128, 129 weight, 122 Columns, 86 Buildings, types of collapse, 1 13 concrete, 113 concrete, 113 concrete See also Concrete exterior, 13 1 multistory, 110 overturning moment, 112 steel, 129 reinforced concrete, 112 tall, 128, 132 shear, 112 spiral reinforcement, 1 13 Compression, 112 C Computers, use of in engineering, 111, 124 C&H Sugar Refinery, Crockett, CA, 86 Concrete,86,99, 111, 112, 113, 115, 130 California Polytechnic Institute, Pasadena, CA reinforced, 12 9 response by professors to Separate 66, 123- reinforcement, lack of continuity, 128 125 Construction California State Chamber of Commerce flat slab, 102 building code (1939), 86, 89 Corlet and Anderson, Architects and Engineers, California Sugar Company, work on, 86 132 Canol pipeline project, 93 Corning, Leo H., 136 Carcross, Canada Crude oil, 92, 93, 94 Canol pipeline, 93 Caswell Coffee Building, San Francisco, CA, 101-102 Cataloging design data, 118 Dames and Moore, Engineers, 94 Chevron, career at, 82, 83, 85, 86, 91, 91-9.5, Damping, 107, 116, 128 97,98,106 Davis, Raymond E., 86, 87 Chevron, career at De Maria, Charles, 136 Civil and architectural division supervisor, 92 Deflection, 106, 130, 131 exterior walls, 13 2 Chi Epsilon, member of, 82 Degenkolb, Henry J., 78, 106, 113, 129 Chopra, Anil K., Dynamics of Structures, 107 Depression Civil engineering examination, 98 work during, 85 Civil engineers license, 98 Design CJB-Earl and Wright allowable stress, 117

155 Index Connections: The EERI Oral History Series

base shear overturning moment, 103, 112-1 13, 118 codifying, 117 reduction factor, 112, 12 3 coefficients, 107, 111 relativity of, 132-133 defining, 103, 104, 110, 120, 129 response of structures See Buildings, determining, 104, 111, 116, 129 response properties of establishing, 114 ground motion, response to, 106 shearforces, 104, 106, 112, 113, 118, 129 strength offset, 111 codifying, 117 triangular distribution of, 117, 12 3 coefficients, 107, 111 building properties See Buildings, response defining, 103, 110,120 properties of determining, 11 1, 116 cataloging design data, 118 distribution of, 110 establishing, 114 coefficients, 114 Separate 66, defining, 104 columns See Columns triangular distribution of, 117 computer use in See Computers, use of in spectra, 115 engineering differences between theoretical and concrete See Concrete code. A.K. Chopra's criteria See Design criteria Dynamics of Structures, 107 damping, 107, 116, 128 tall buildings, 128 details, 133 theories on, 132-1 3 3 ductility See Buildings, response properties triangular distribution of forces, 12 3 of vertical loads, 92, 114, 117, 133 dynamic analysis, I 18, 120 wave forces, 94, 128 earthquake resistance, 88, 129, 13 1, 13 3 wind forces, 88,92, 119, 130, 132, 133 10 percent lateral force, 102 yielding, 117 adequate, 124 architectural defects, 13 3 Design criteria, 119, 12 3 bracing, addition of, 129 allowable stress, 117 code provisions, 99 base shear coefficients, 107 criteria, 107 calculating, 104 important factors, 13 3 code, 107 inclination of architects toward, 129 earthquake resistance, 132 objective, 107 poor design, consequences of, 128 establishing, 92, 114 elastic, 104, 117 lateral forces, 117 fundamental periods, 107, 13 3 nuclear power plants, 107 I-factor, 120 objectives of, 107 J-factor promulgated in Separate 66, 113- observations, relation to, 127 114 overturning, 117 lateral forces See Lateral forces practical, 124 lateral loads, 92, 117, 129 Dewell and Earl, Engineers, 86 modern, 99 drafting room at (photograph), 13 5

156 John E. Rinne Index

Dewell, Henry D., 85-89 Dragon, Louis, stevedoring with, 8 1 F Drift limitations, 130 Fairbanks, AK Canol pipeline, 93 Ductility, 129 Field Act, 88, 101 Dynamic analysis, 1 18, 120 Finch, Herman F., 13 6 First World Conference on Earthquake Engi- E neering, 1956, 78 Earl and Wright, Engineers, 86, 95 Five Fifty-Five Market Street Building, San Francisco, CA, 92 Earl, Austin W., 86, 87, 88, 89, 92, 95, 102 Broadway Tunnel, Oakland-Orinda, 88 Flat slab construction, 102 Posey Tube, Oakland-Alameda, 88 Fletcher, Phil, 86 Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Flexibility, 94, 104, 106, 116, 128, 130 (EERI), 98,99, 107 exterior walls deflect, 13 2 Earthquake-resistant design See Design firststory, 13 1 Earthquakes Flood Building, San Francisco, CA, 106 Anchorage, AK (1964), 112, 116, 127, 128 Foundations, 86,92, 119, 120 Bakersfield, CA (1952), 112 bridges, 119 El Centro, CA (1940), 104 characteristics on hard rock, 116 Long Beach, CA (1933), 87, 88, 89, 101, design, 92 102, 104, 105 flexibility, 106 Mexico City (1985), 112, 132 overturning moment, 112 San Fernando, CA (1971), 112 pile, 94 San Francisco, CA (1906), 102, 106, 123 spread footings, 94 buildings that survived, 106 storage tanks, 128 Santa Barbara, CA (1925), 89, 102 tanks, 94 Edmonton, Canada, 93 Four Seasons Building, Anchorage, AK, 128 Education Framing systems, 130 University of California at Berkeley, 8 1 backup system, 12 9 El Centro, CA earthquake (1 940), 104 concrete, 130 Elasticity, 104 deflection, 130 allowable stresses, 117 flexibility, 130 Engineering practice, 101, 112 , 1 17, 13 0 lateral forces on, 13 2 computer use in, 111, 124 moment resisting, 129 judgment, 123, 124 resistance to lateral forces, 13 1 standards, 102 steel, 129, 130 Engineers Club, member of, 98 Fundamental periods, 106, 107, 114, 133

157 Index Connections: The EERl Oral History Series

International Conference of Building Officials G (ICBO), 103,112 Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco, CA, 86 Grand Junction, Colorado pipeline into, 93 J Ground motion, 98, 104, 105, 107, 111, 115, Japanese response to Separate 66, 122 116, 120,127, 132 J-factor, 112-1 14, 118 acceleration, 102, 110, 115, 119, 123 Jobs accelerographs from Long Beach, CA earthquake (1 93 3), 102, 104 C&H Sugar Refinery, Crockett, CA, 86 instrumentation, 115, 119 California Sugar Company, 86 records, use of in seismic design, 115 Chevron, 82, 83,85,86,91,91-95,97,98, 106 response of structures to, 106, 116 shaking table studies, 117 Richmond Refinery, Richmond, CA, 83 Gulf Coast Refinery, Pascagula, MS, 94 CJB-Earl and Wright, North Sea platforms, 95 Hoover Dam studies, 87 H Huber and Knapik, Engineers, work for, 86 Hammill, Harold B., 78 Principia College, design of school Hesselmeyer, Harry L., 105 buildings, 85 Hoover Dam Sacramento Department of Water, Sacramento, CA, 87 graduate school research on materials for, 86 school buildings, design of, 101 Hoover Dam studies, 87 SEDCO, offshore oil drilling company, 95 Hoyt, Warren, 83 stevedoring, 8 1 summer jobs Huber and Knapik, Engineers, 77, 86, 87, 91, 92, 101, 102 Berkeley City Camp at Echo Lake, 81 Rinne work for, 86 Southern Pacific Company, 82 surveying, 82 Huber, Walter L., 77, 86, 87, 88, 91, 92, 101, 102, 131 Washington High School, San Francisco, CA, 101 White Lumberyard, Berkeley, CA, 77 I Joint Committee, Separate 66, American Soci- ety of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and Struc- Inelastic response of building, 116 tural Engineers Association of Northern Inspection of construction, 133 Calif, 92,97,98, 101, 103, 104, 105, 106, International Association for Earthquake 109,114,115,120,123,132 Engineering (IAEE), 98,99 Judgment, importance of, 123, 124

158 John E. Rinne Index

K Kettleman Hills to Los Medanos pipeline, 92 MacKenzie River, Canada Canol pipeline, 93 Knapik, EdwardM., 86,87,91,92,97, 101, 102 Maker, Frank L, 82-83 Marin School, Albany, CA, 81 L Martel, Raul R. (R.R.), 123, 124 Martin Luther King Junior High School, Lateral forces, 104 Berkeley, CA, 81 10 percent, 102 Master's thesis, 1935, 86 2 percent, 88 Mathematics, 82, 104 accelerograph recording of, 102 Mexico City earthquake (1985), 112, 132 assigning, 1 18 Modes of vibration See Vibration capabilities of older buildings, 86 Moissieff Award, American Society of Civil codifying, 98, 1 17 Engineers (ASCE), 111 defining, 103, 106 Moment deflection, 13 1 overturning, 103, 112-113, 118 design criteria, 1 17 Moment resisting frame, 129 design values, 1 11 Muto, Kiyoshi, 122, 137 designingfor, 87,92, 101, 106, 110, 116 distribution of, 117 first story, 13 I N framing system, effect on, 132 National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Pro- gram(NEHRP), 112, 115, 118, 120, 124 fundamental mode, 113 design spectrum, 120 I-factor, 120 Newmark, Nathan M., 136 increase of, 120 Norman Wells, Canada nominal, 94 Canol pipeline, 93 resistance of structure to, 106 North Sea platforms, 95 Lateral loads, 92, 117, 129 Nuclear power plants, design criteria, 107 Long Beach, CA earthquake (1933), 87,88,89, 101, 102, 104, 105 Los Medanos to Kettleman Hills pipeline, 92 0 Offshore structures, 94,95, 128 Ludwig, Milton, 103, 104, 115 Los Angeles, CA area, 92, 94 North Sea platforms, 95 Platform Hazel, 94

159 Index Connections: The EERl Oral History Series

Platform Hilda, 94 Platform Hazel, 94 Santa Barbara, CA area, 92,94 Platform Hilda, 94 Olive View Hospital, 112, 124, 128 Portland Cement Association (PCA), 99 Overturning, 114, 116, 117 Powers, Henry C., 78 Overturning moment, 103, 1 12-1 13, 118 Principia College, design of school buildings, 85 Publications design criteria, paper on, 118 Pacific Gas & Electric Company, STANPAC oil tank damage report, 128 gas line, 92 Separate 66, 109-1 14, 122 Pascagula, Mississippi Spectra article on Robison paper, 106 Chevron refinery in, 93 Pascagula, MS, Gulf Coast Refinery, 93 Petroleum R crude oil, 92, 93, 94 Reduction factor, 112-1 13, 123 Platform Hazel, 94 J-factor, 118 Platform Hilda, 94 Refineries, 82, 83, 86, 92, 93, 94 Phi Beta Kappa, member of, 82 Baharain, 92 Pipelines, 92, 93 crude oil, 94 Alaska, 93 gilsonite slurry feed, 93 Canada and Alaska, 92 Gulf Coast, 94 Canol Project, 93 Registration, civil engineering examination, 98 Carcross, 93 Reinforcement, 113, 12 9 conversion of service, 93 continuity of, 12 8 crude oil, 93 spiral, 112 gas, 93 Resistance of buildings to earthquake forces, gilsonite slurry, 93 129, 132 Grand Junction, Colorado, 93 10 percent, 102 Kettleman Hills to Los Medanos, 92 adequate, 124 Rio Vista, 92 analysis of, 129 San Joaquin Delta area, 92 architectural defects, 133 Skagway to Carcross, 93 bracing, addition of, 129 slurry, 93 calculations, 106 STANPAC, Pacific Gas & Electric code provisions, 99 Company, 92 definition of, 104 Watson Lake, Canada, 93 design criteria, 107, 132 Whitehorse, Canada, 93 framing systems, 130 Yukon Territory, 93 importance of seismic design, 88

160 John E. Rinne Index

important factors, 13 3 awards, 82 inclination of architects toward, 129 Distinguished Engineering Alumnus, lateral forces, 13 0 University of California, moment resisting frame, 129 Berkeley, CA, 139 Chevron, career at, 82,91-95 objective, 107 Chevron, summer work at, 82 poor configurations, 13 1 clubs poor design, consequences of, 128 Engineers Club, 98 structural materials, 133 early education wind criteria, 88 Berkeley High School, Berkeley, CA, Response coefficients, 107 81 Response curve of one-mass system, 1 16 Marin School, Albany, CA, 81 Martin Luther King Junior High Response of structures See Buildings, response School, Berkeley, CA, 8 1 properties of education Responses of structures, 1 17 Master's thesis, 1935, 86 Riley Act, 88, 114, 120 University of California at Berkeley, Rinne, Art (brother) graduation from (1 93 l), 82 Finnish parents, 81 photograph, 136 honor societies, member of, 82 Rinne, Clarence (brother), 77 jobs, 133 photograph, 136 Hoover Dam studies, 87 Rinne, Edward (son), 79, 82, 139 SEDCO, offshore oil drilling photograph, 136 company, 95 Rinne, Emil (father) Master's thesis, 1935, 86 photograph, 136 Phi Beta Kappa, 82 Rinne, Henry (brother) photographs of, 13 5-1 39 photograph, 136 publications Rinne, John E. oil tank damage report, 128 associations paper on design criteria, 1 18 American Society of Civil Engineers Separate 66, 1 11, 12 2 (ASCE) Spectra article on Robinson paper, 106 President of, 97 retirement (1980), 95 San Francisco section, 97 Tau Beta Pi, member of, 82 International Association for Earth- work at White Lumberyard, Berkeley, CA, quake Engineering (IAEE), 77 president of, 98 Rinne, John M. (son), 82 Structural Engineers Association of Rinne, Josephine Claussen (wife), 82 Northern California (SEAONC), 98 Rinne, Rose Marie (wife), 79, 82 Rinne, Stanley (son), 82 photograph, 136

161 Index Connections: The EERI Oral History Series

Rinne, Thomas (grandson), 139 schools, 88 Robison, Edward C., 103, 104, 105, 106, 109, Separate 66, 120 115, 118,122 Seismic design See also Design Separate 66, 98, 101, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109- 114,115-125 ASCE/SEAONC joint committee, 78 Sacramento Department of Water, Sacramen- Caltech response, 12 3-1 2 5 to, CA, 87 criticism of, 122-125 San Fernando, CA earthquake (1971), 112 Japanese response to, 122 San Francisco, CA J-factor, 112, 113-1 14 225 Bush Street, 92 overturning, 112 555 Market Street, 92 Seward, AK,128 Alexander Building, 105 S-factor, 115 building code, 112 Shaking table studies, 117 Caswell Coffee Building, 101-102 Shearforces, 104, 106, 111, 112, 113, 118, 129 earthquake (1906), 102, 106, 123 base shear buildings that survived, 106 codifying, 1 17 Flood Building, 106 coefficients, 107, 111 Golden Gate Bridge, 86 defining, 103, 104, 110, 120, 129 Sano, Riki, 122 determining, 104, 111, 116, 129 Santa Barbara, CA earthquake (1925), 89, 102 establishing, 114 ground motion, response to, 106 SEAOC See Structural Engineers Association of strength offset, 111 California (SEAOC) triangular distribution of, 117 SEAONC See Structural Engineers Association coefficients, 107 of Northern California (SEAONC) defining, 103, 120 SEDCO defining in Separate 66, 104 offshore oil drilling company, Rinne work distribution of, 110 for, 95 establishing design, 114 Sedgwick, George A. (Art), 78 triangular distribution of, 117, 12 3 Seismic design, 118 Shiely, Rose Marie Marcella (wife), 82 code, San Francisco, 88 Silverado Country Club, Napa Valley, CA, 79 codifying, 97, 101, 102, 113 defining, method of, 104 Sloshing damage to storage tanks, 12 8 development of, 103 Slurry pipelines, 93 early attempts, 102 Soil conditions, 116, 12 3 early efforts, 88 Spectra, 104, 106, 108, 111, 118, 120, 123 ground motion records, use of in, 115 code-related, 107 importance of, 88 design, 115

162 John E. Rinne Index

differences between theory and code, 107- Triangular distribution of forces, 118, 12 3 108 Trotman, Jane (stepdaughter), 82 ground motion, 116 Tunnels, 88 site-specific, 132 Spectralresponse, 103,104,105,107,123,127,128 Standard Oil See Chevron U STANPAC gas line, Pacific Gas & Electric U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, 98, 105 Company, 92 Umemura, Hajima, 122 State Chamber of Commerce building code (1939), 86, 89 Uniform Building Code, 89,102,103,112,113, 116, 117, 118, 120 Steel buildings, 129 University of California, Berkeley, CA Stiffness, 88, 130 Distinguished Engineering Alumnus Stirrups, 113 Award, 139 Stirton, James, 91 Strength of buildings, 102, 11 1, 117, 129 Stresses, 113 V allowable, 117 Vensano code, 103 paths, 133 Vensano, Harry, 103,114 Strong motion instrumentation, 115 Vertical loads, 92, 114, 117, 133 Structural engineering license, 98 Vibration,%, 103, 104, 106, 107, 111, 116, 123 Structural Engineers Association of California 15-story building, 105 (SEAOC), 78,97, 103, 112, 114, 115, 117, buildings, 103, 104, 106, 107, 111, 116, 118, 119,120,123 116, 118, 122, 123 ASCE/SEAONC joint committee, 78 modes, 118, 122 Blue Book, 78, 114 Seismology Committee, 103, 112, 114, 12 3 Structural Engineers Association of Northern W California (SEAONC), 79,97,98, 103 Walls exterior, 13 1 flexibility of, 132 T exterior bearing, 102 Tanks, damage to in Alaska, 128 frame absorbs lateral forces without Tau Beta Pi, member of, 82 damage to, 132 Tension, 113 shear, 129 Third World Conference on Earthquake utility, 13 1 Engineering, Aukland and Wellington, Washington High School, San Francisco, CA, New Zealand (1965), 13 7 work on, 101

163 Index Connections: The EERl Oral History Series

Watson Lake, Canada, 93 Wave forces, 94 Wheeler, William T., 78 White Lumberyard, Berkeley, CA, 77 Whitehorse, Canada Canol pipeline, 93 Whitman, Robert V., 98 Wind forces, 88, 92, 119, 130, 132, 133 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering First, Berkeley, CA (1956), 75, 78, 98 Second, Japan (1962), 99 Third, Aukland and Wellington, New Zealand (1965), 99, 137 Wright, Johathan B. (Buzz), 86,89,95,102

Y Yield, 117 Yukon Territory, Canada Canol pipeline, 93

164